In order for ClinGen to maintain up‐to‐date gene‐disease clinical validity classifications for use by clinicians and clinical laboratories, an appropriate timeline for reevaluating curated gene‐disease associations will need to be determined. ...
http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
https://www.riss.kr/link?id=O122444102
2018년
-
1059-7794
1098-1004
SCI;SCIE;SCOPUS
학술저널
1494-1504 [※수록면이 p5 이하이면, Review, Columns, Editor's Note, Abstract 등일 경우가 있습니다.]
0
상세조회0
다운로드다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)
In order for ClinGen to maintain up‐to‐date gene‐disease clinical validity classifications for use by clinicians and clinical laboratories, an appropriate timeline for reevaluating curated gene‐disease associations will need to be determined. ...
In order for ClinGen to maintain up‐to‐date gene‐disease clinical validity classifications for use by clinicians and clinical laboratories, an appropriate timeline for reevaluating curated gene‐disease associations will need to be determined. To provide guidance on how often a gene‐disease association should be recurated, a retrospective analysis of 30 gene curations was performed. Curations were simulated at one‐year intervals starting with the year of the first publication to assert disease‐causing variants in the gene to observe trends in the classification over time, as well as factors that influenced changes in classification. On average, gene‐disease associations spent the least amount of time in the “Moderate” classification before progressing to “Strong” or “Definitive.” In contrast, gene‐disease associations that spent five or more years in the “Limited” classification were most likely to remain “Limited” or become “Disputed/Refuted.” Large population datasets contributed to the reclassification of several gene‐disease associations from “Limited” to “Disputed/Refuted.” Finally, recent advancements in sequencing technology correlated with an increase in the quantity of case‐level evidence that was curated per paper. This study provided a number of key points to consider when determining how often to recurate a gene‐disease association.
Maintaining the most current ClinGen gene‐disease clinical validity classifications requires an appropriate timeline for re‐evaluating curated gene‐disease associations. In order to provide guidance on how often a gene‐disease association should be re‐evaluated, a retrospective analysis of 30 gene curations was performed at one‐year intervals to identify trends in the classification over time and factors that influenced changes in classification. This study provides key consideration points for determining the most effective timeline for re‐evaluating gene‐disease associations.
Recommendations for interpreting the loss of function pvs1 acmg/amp variant criterion
Updated recommendation for the benign stand‐alone acmg/amp criterion