Cited by 114Genomics and Rare DiseasesGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

REVEL and BayesDel outperform other in silico meta-predictors for clinical variant classification

Open access
Tian, Yuan, Pesaran, Tina, Chamberlin, Adam, Fenwick, R. Bryn, Li, Shuwei, Gau, Chia-Ling, Chao, Elizabeth C., Lu, Hsiao-Mei +2 more·2019·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Many in silico predictors of genetic variant pathogenicity have been previously developed, but there is currently no standard application of these algorithms for variant assessment. Using 4,094 ClinVar-curated missense variants in clinically actionable genes, we evaluated the accuracy and yield of benign and deleterious evidence in 5 in silico meta-predictors, as well as agreement of SIFT and PolyPhen2, and report the derived thresholds for the best performing predictor(s). REVEL and BayesDel outperformed all other meta-predictors (CADD, MetaSVM, Eigen), with higher positive predictive value, comparable negative predictive value, higher yield, and greater overall prediction performance. Agreement of SIFT and PolyPhen2 resulted in slightly higher yield but lower overall prediction performance than REVEL or BayesDel. Our results support the use of gene-level rather than generalized thresholds, when gene-level thresholds can be estimated. Our results also support the use of 2-sided thresholds, which allow for uncertainty, rather than a single, binary cut-point for assigning benign and deleterious evidence. The gene-level 2-sided thresholds we derived for REVEL or BayesDel can be used to assess in silico evidence for missense variants in accordance with current classification guidelines.

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/s41598-019-49224-8

Cites

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 21 · Cited by 114

Authors
Tian, Y., Pesaran, T., Chamberlin, A., Fenwick, R. B., Li, S., Gau, C.-L., Chao, E. C., Lu, H.-M., Black, M. H., & Qian, D.
Affiliations
  • Ambry Genetics (United States) (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
Qian, Dajun
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2019-09-04
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
12752-12752
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2971359736
Cited by
114
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 1
FWCI
4.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
REVEL, missense mutations, ClinVar, SIFT, CADD, Eigen

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