Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 762

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sherloc: a comprehensive refinement of the ACMG–AMP variant classification criteria

Open access
Nykamp, Keith, Anderson, Michael, Powers, Martin, Garcia, John, Herrera, Blanca, Ho, Yuan-Yuan, Kobayashi, Yuya, Patil, Nila, Thusberg, Janita, Westbrook, Marjorie, The Invitae Clinical Genomics Group, Topper, Scott·2017·Genetics in Medicine

Abstract

PurposeThe 2015 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics-Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG-AMP) guidelines were a major step toward establishing a common framework for variant classification. In practice, however, several aspects of the guidelines lack specificity, are subject to varied interpretations, or fail to capture relevant aspects of clinical molecular genetics. A simple implementation of the guidelines in their current form is insufficient for consistent and comprehensive variant classification.MethodsWe undertook an iterative process of refining the ACMG-AMP guidelines. We used the guidelines to classify more than 40,000 clinically observed variants, assessed the outcome, and refined the classification criteria to capture exceptions and edge cases. During this process, the criteria evolved through eight major and minor revisions.ResultsOur implementation: (i) separated ambiguous ACMG-AMP criteria into a set of discrete but related rules with refined weights; (ii) grouped certain criteria to protect against the overcounting of conceptually related evidence; and (iii) replaced the "clinical criteria" style of the guidelines with additive, semiquantitative criteria.ConclusionSherloc builds on the strong framework of 33 rules established by the ACMG-AMP guidelines and introduces 108 detailed refinements, which support a more consistent and transparent approach to variant classification.

Overview

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.2017.37

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 762

Metadata

Authors
Nykamp, K., Anderson, M., Powers, M., Garcia, J., Herrera, B., Ho, Y.-Y., Kobayashi, Y., Patil, N., Thusberg, J., Westbrook, M., The Invitae Clinical Genomics Group, & Topper, S.
Venue
Genetics in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
19
Issue
10
Pages
1105-1117
ISSN
1098-3600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2612091911
Cited by
762
References
4
FWCI
31.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sherloc: a comprehensive refinement of the ACMG–AMP variant classification criteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/gim.2017.37
The paper
Nykamp, K., Anderson, M., Powers, M., Garcia, J., Herrera, B., Ho, Y.-Y., Kobayashi, Y., Patil, N., Thusberg, J., Westbrook, M., The Invitae Clinical Genomics Group, & Topper, S. (2017). Sherloc: a comprehensive refinement of the ACMG–AMP variant classification criteria. Genetics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2017.37

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.