Locus-specific databases and recommendations to strengthen their contribution to the classification of variants in cancer susceptibility genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Locus-specific databases (LSDBs) are curated collections of sequence variants in genes associated with disease. LSDBs of cancer-related genes often serve as a critical resource to researchers, diagnostic laboratories, clinicians, and others in the cancer genetics community. LSDBs are poised to play an important role in disseminating clinical classification of variants. The IARC Working Group on Unclassified Genetic Variants has proposed a new system of five classes of variants in cancer susceptibility genes. However, standards are lacking for reporting and analyzing the multiple data types that assist in classifying variants. By adhering to standards of transparency and consistency in the curation and annotation of data, LSDBs can be critical for organizing our understanding of how genetic variation relates to disease. In this article we discuss how LSDBs can accomplish these goals, using existing databases for BRCA1, BRCA2, MSH2, MLH1, TP53, and CDKN2A to illustrate the progress and remaining challenges in this field. We recommend that: 1) LSDBs should only report a conclusion related to pathogenicity if a consensus has been reached by an expert panel. 2) The system used to classify variants should be standardized. The Working Group encourages use of the five class system described in this issue by Plon and colleagues. 3) Evidence that supports a conclusion should be reported in the database, including sources and criteria used for assignment. 4) Variants should only be classified as pathogenic if more than one type of evidence has been considered. 5) All instances of all variants should be recorded.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.149 | 0.364 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.030 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".