Cited by 595Genomics and Rare DiseasesBRCA gene mutations in cancerGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

Modeling the ACMG/AMP variant classification guidelines as a Bayesian classification framework

Open access
Tavtigian, Sean V., Greenblatt, Marc S., Harrison, Steven M., Nussbaum, Robert L., Prabhu, Snehit A., Boucher, Kenneth M., Biesecker, Leslie G.·2018·Genetics in Medicine

Abstract

Purpose We evaluated the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) variant pathogenicity guidelines for internal consistency and compatibility with Bayesian statistical reasoning.Methods The ACMG/AMP criteria were translated into a naive Bayesian classifier, assuming four levels of evidence and exponentially scaled odds of pathogenicity. We tested this framework with a range of prior probabilities and odds of pathogenicity.Results We modeled the ACMG/AMP guidelines using biologically plausible assumptions. Most ACMG/AMP combining criteria were compatible. One ACMG/AMP likely pathogenic combination was mathematically equivalent to pathogenic and one ACMG/AMP pathogenic combination was actually likely pathogenic. We modeled combinations that include evidence for and against pathogenicity, showing that our approach scored some combinations as pathogenic or likely pathogenic that ACMG/AMP would designate as variant of uncertain significance (VUS).Conclusion By transforming the ACMG/AMP guidelines into a Bayesian framework, we provide a mathematical foundation for what was a qualitative heuristic. Only 2 of the 18 existing ACMG/AMP evidence combinations were mathematically inconsistent with the overall framework. Mixed combinations of pathogenic and benign evidence could yield a likely pathogenic, likely benign, or VUS result. This quantitative framework validates the approach adopted by the ACMG/AMP, provides opportunities to further refine evidence categories and combining rules, and supports efforts to automate components of variant pathogenicity assessments.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/gim.2017.210

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tavtigian, S. V., Greenblatt, M. S., Harrison, S. M., Nussbaum, R. L., Prabhu, S. A., Boucher, K. M., & Biesecker, L. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Utah (US)
  • University of Vermont (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Invitae (United States) (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Tavtigian, Sean V.
Venue
Genetics in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
20
Issue
9
Pages
1054-1060
ISSN
1098-3600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2781534540
Cited by
590
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 113 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 77 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 84 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 18 · 2016: 1
FWCI
24.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genetics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Connecticut
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Huntsman Cancer Institute (P30CA042014)
  • Invitae
  • University of Cambridge
  • National Institutes of Health
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • School of Medicine
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (HG200388 03, U41HG009650, U41HG006834, U01HG007436, HG200387, HG200388, U01HG007437, U41HG009649, ZIAHG200388, U24HG009650, ZIAHG200387)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA164944, R01CA121245, P30CA042014)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
variant pathogenicity assessment, Bayesian classification, naive Bayesian classifier, variants of uncertain significance, combining rules, prior probability
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Genetic Testing, Humans, Software, Genetic Variation, Genome, Human, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Computational Biology, Genomics, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review