ClinGen Hereditary Cardiovascular Disease Gene Curation Expert Panel: Reappraisal of Genes associated with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is an inherited cardiac condition affecting ~1 in 500 and exhibits marked genetic heterogeneity. Previously published in 2019, 57 HCM-associated genes were curated providing the first systematic evaluation of gene-disease validity. Here we report work by the ClinGen Hereditary Cardiovascular Disorders Gene Curation Expert Panel (HCVD-GCEP) to reappraise the clinical validity of previously curated and new putative HCM genes. Methods: The ClinGen systematic gene curation framework was used to re-classify the gene-disease relationships for HCM and related syndromic entities involving left ventricular hypertrophy. Genes previously curated were included if their classification was not definitive, and if the time since curation was >2-3 years. New genes with literature assertions for HCM were included for initial evaluation. Existing genes were curated for new inheritance patterns where evidence existed. Curations were presented on twice monthly calls, with the HCVD-GCEP composed of 29 individuals from 21 institutions across 6 countries. Results: Thirty-one genes were re-curated and an additional 5 new potential HCM-associated genes were curated. Among the re-curated genes, 17 (55%) genes changed classification: 1 limited and 4 disputed (from no known disease relationship), 9 disputed (from limited), and 3 definitive (from moderate). Among these, 3 (10%) genes had a clinically relevant upgrade, including TNNC1, a 9th sarcomere gene with definitive HCM association. With new evidence, two genes were curated for multiple inheritance patterns (TRIM63, disputed for autosomal dominant but moderate for autosomal recessive; ALPK3, strong for autosomal dominant and definitive for recessive). CSRP3 was curated for a semi-dominant mode of inheritance (definitive). Nine (29%) genes were downgraded to disputed, further discouraging clinical reporting of variants in these genes. Five genes recently reported to cause HCM were curated: RPS6KB1 and RBM20 (limited), KLHL24 and MT-TI (moderate), and FHOD3 (definitive). Conclusions: We report 29 genes with definitive, strong or moderate evidence of causation for HCM or isolated LVH, including sarcomere, sarcomere-associated and syndromic conditions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".