Comparative analysis of <i>in-silico</i> tools in identifying pathogenic variants in dominant inherited retinal diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) are a group of rare genetic eye conditions that cause blindness. Despite progress in identifying genes associated with IRDs, improvements are necessary for classifying rare autosomal dominant (AD) disorders. AD diseases are highly heterogenous, with causal variants being restricted to specific amino acid changes within certain protein domains, making AD conditions difficult to classify. Here, we aim to determine the top-performing in-silico tools for predicting the pathogenicity of AD IRD variants. We annotated variants from ClinVar and benchmarked 39 variant classifier tools on IRD genes, split by inheritance pattern. Using area-under-the-curve (AUC) analysis, we determined the top-performing tools and defined thresholds for variant pathogenicity. Top-performing tools were assessed using genome sequencing on a cohort of participants with IRDs of unknown etiology. MutScore achieved the highest accuracy within AD genes, yielding an AUC of 0.969. When filtering for AD gain-of-function and dominant negative variants, BayesDel had the highest accuracy with an AUC of 0.997. Five participants with variants in NR2E3, RHO, GUCA1A, and GUCY2D were confirmed to have dominantly inherited disease based on pedigree, phenotype, and segregation analysis. We identified two uncharacterized variants in GUCA1A (c.428T>A, p.Ile143Thr) and RHO (c.631C>G, p.His211Asp) in three participants. Our findings support using a multi-classifier approach comprised of new missense classifier tools to identify pathogenic variants in participants with AD IRDs. Our results provide a foundation for improved genetic diagnosis for people with IRDs.
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".