Benchmarking computational variant effect predictors by their ability to infer human traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computational variant effect predictors offer a scalable and increasingly reliable means of interpreting human genetic variation, but concerns of circularity and bias have limited previous methods for evaluating and comparing predictors. Population-level cohorts of genotyped and phenotyped participants that have not been used in predictor training can facilitate an unbiased benchmarking of available methods. Using a curated set of human gene-trait associations with a reported rare-variant burden association, we evaluate the correlations of 24 computational variant effect predictors with associated human traits in the UK Biobank and All of Us cohorts. RESULTS: AlphaMissense outperformed all other predictors in inferring human traits based on rare missense variants in UK Biobank and All of Us participants. The overall rankings of computational variant effect predictors in these two cohorts showed a significant positive correlation. CONCLUSION: We describe a method to assess computational variant effect predictors that sidesteps the limitations of previous evaluations. This approach is generalizable to future predictors and could continue to inform predictor choice for personal and clinical genetics.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".