Specifications of the ACMG/AMP standards and guidelines for mitochondrial DNA variant interpretation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variant pathogenicity interpretation has special considerations given unique features of the mtDNA genome, including maternal inheritance, variant heteroplasmy, threshold effect, absence of splicing, and contextual effects of haplogroups. Currently, there are insufficient standardized criteria for mtDNA variant assessment, which leads to inconsistencies in clinical variant pathogenicity reporting. An international working group of mtDNA experts was assembled within the Mitochondrial Disease Sequence Data Resource Consortium and obtained Expert Panel status from ClinGen. This group reviewed the 2015 American College of Medical Genetics and Association of Molecular Pathology standards and guidelines that are widely used for clinical interpretation of DNA sequence variants and provided further specifications for additional and specific guidance related to mtDNA variant classification. These Expert Panel consensus specifications allow for consistent consideration of the unique aspects of the mtDNA genome that directly influence variant assessment, including addressing mtDNA genome composition and structure, haplogroups and phylogeny, maternal inheritance, heteroplasmy, and functional analyses unique to mtDNA, as well as specifications for utilization of mtDNA genomic databases and computational algorithms.
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 | 0.078 | 0.208 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.019 |
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".