Clingen Coagulation Factor Deficiency Variant Curation Expert Panel: Meeting the Need for Recommendations to Curate Variants in the Coagulation Factor Genes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The genetics of blood coagulation has been an ongoing area of research; and with the advent of next generation sequencing panels, there is a significant increase in the number of variants identified in coagulation factor genes. Several published reports and online databases document the variants observed in patients with bleeding disorders; however, the clinical interpretation of these variants is not always straight-forward. To enable gene-specific variant interpretation in coagulation factor deficiency disorders, the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded effort, Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen), has developed the Coagulation Factor Deficiency Variant Curation Expert Panel (CFD-VCEP). The CFD-VCEP is comprised of expert clinicians, genetic counselors, clinical laboratory diagnosticians and researchers working toward the goal of developing and implementing standardized protocols for sequence variant interpretation for coagulation factor genes. The CFD-VCEP adapts the 2015 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) guidelines for precise and consistent variant classification to genes involved in blood coagulation deficiencies. These guidelines recommend the use of 28 criteria codes based on the evidence category and the strength of the evidence (see Figure below). The first two genes under the purview of CFD-VCEP are F8 (OMIM: 300841) and F9 (OMIM: 300746). Pathogenic variants in the F8 and F9 genes resulting in the loss of protein function cause Hemophilia A and B, respectively. Owing to the similarity between these two genes with respect to their role in the coagulation cascade as well as the resulting phenotype, specification of variant curation guidelines for both genes has been undertaken simultaneously. With the completion of guideline specification for F8 and F9, the CFD-VCEP will subsequently continue this effort for other coagulation factor genes, while also curating F8 and F9 variants reported in ClinVar and other variant databases. Modifying the ACMG/AMP guidelines involves gene- and disease-informed specifications of the recommended criteria codes. This includes identifying which codes are applicable and which are not, defining gene- and disease-specific cut-offs such as for population frequency, and making code strength adjustments when appropriate. The specified guidelines are further refined based on their performance on a set of pilot variants (n = 30) for each gene compared to existing assertions of variant classification in ClinVar and by diagnostic laboratories represented in the CFD-VCEP. F8 and F9 variants classified by the CFD-VCEP will be submitted to ClinVar at the 3-star review status, with the tag of "FDA-recognized database", and the CFD-VCEP plans to begin this process by the second quarter of 2020. The considerations by the CFD-VCEP in the guideline-specification process and results from the pilot analysis will be discussed. This effort will lead to the standardized use of evidence criteria for the evaluation of variants in F8 and F9, which will reduce the number of variants of uncertain significance and those of conflicting interpretations, making genetic testing results more informative for providers and patients. The CFD-VCEP also encourages sharing de-identified data on variants among laboratories, which enables accurate and consistent curations. Figure Disclosures Lee: UNC Hemophilia Treatment Center: Employment. Carcao:Biotest: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Grifols: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire/Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk Inc: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Research Funding; LFB: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bioverativ/Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kemball-Cook:European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders: Other: Freelance . Leebeek:CSL Behring: Research Funding; uniQure BV: Consultancy, Research Funding; Baxalta/Shire: Research Funding. Miller:Division of Blood Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Consultancy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,075 | 0,200 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,017 | 0,019 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,016 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».