The CIViC knowledge model and standard operating procedures for curation and clinical interpretation of variants in cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Manually curated variant knowledgebases and their associated knowledge models are serving an increasingly important role in distributing and interpreting variants in cancer. These knowledgebases vary in their level of public accessibility, and the complexity of the models used to capture clinical knowledge. CIViC (Clinical Interpretations of Variants in Cancer - www.civicdb.org ) is a fully open, free-to-use cancer variant interpretation knowledgebase that incorporates highly detailed curation of evidence obtained from peer-reviewed publications. Currently, the CIViC knowledge model consists of four main components: Genes, Variants, Evidence Items, and Assertions. Each component has an associated knowledge model and methods for curation. Gene and Variant data contextualize the genomic region(s) involved in the clinical statement. Evidence Items provide structured associations between variants and their clinically predictive/therapeutic, prognostic, diagnostic, predisposing, and functional implications. Finally, CIViC Assertions summarize collections of CIViC Evidence Items for a specific Disease, Variant, and Clinical Significance with incorporation of clinical and technical guidelines. Here we present the CIViC knowledge model, curation standard operating procedures, and detailed examples to support community-driven curation of cancer variants.
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 | 0.031 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.012 |
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".