Specifications of the ACMG/AMP standards and guidelines for mitochondrial DNA variant interpretation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it