MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406097986 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1011540

Leveraging cancer mutation data to inform the pathogenicity classification of germline missense variants

2025· article· en· W4406097986 on OpenAlexafffund
Bushra Haque, David Cheerie, Amy Pan, Meredith Curtis, Thomas Nalpathamkalam, Jimmy Nguyen, Celine Salhab, Bhooma Thiruvahindrapuram, Jade Zhang, Madeline Couse, Taila Hartley, Michelle M. Morrow, Emily M. Price, Susan Walker, David Malkin, Frederick P. Roth, Gregory Costain

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Genetics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of OttawaHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research CouncilSickkids Research InstituteDepartment of Health and Social CareCancer Research UKHospital for Sick ChildrenWellcome TrustAutism SpeaksCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity of TorontoMcLaughlin Centre, University of Toronto
KeywordsMissense mutationGermlineGermline mutationBiologyGeneticsHuman geneticsCancerMutationComputational biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Innovative and easy-to-implement strategies are needed to improve the pathogenicity assessment of rare germline missense variants. Somatic cancer driver mutations identified through large-scale tumor sequencing studies often impact genes that are also associated with rare Mendelian disorders. The use of cancer mutation data to aid in the interpretation of germline missense variants, regardless of whether the gene is associated with a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome or a non-cancer-related developmental disorder, has not been systematically assessed. We extracted putative cancer driver missense mutations from the Cancer Hotspots database and annotated them as germline variants, including presence/absence and classification in ClinVar. We trained two supervised learning models (logistic regression and random forest) to predict variant classifications of germline missense variants in ClinVar using Cancer Hotspot data (training dataset). The performance of each model was evaluated with an independent test dataset generated in part from searching public and private genome-wide sequencing datasets from ~1.5 million individuals. Of the 2,447 cancer mutations, 691 corresponding germline variants had been previously classified in ClinVar: 426 (61.6%) as likely pathogenic/pathogenic, 261 (37.8%) as uncertain significance, and 4 (0.6%) as likely benign/benign. The odds ratio for a likely pathogenic/pathogenic classification in ClinVar was 28.3 (95% confidence interval: 24.2-33.1, p < 0.001), compared with all other germline missense variants in the same 216 genes. Both supervised learning models showed high correlation with pathogenicity assessments in the training dataset. There was high area under precision-recall curve values (0.847 and 0.829) and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve values (0.821 and 0.774) for logistic regression and random forest models, respectively, when applied to the test dataset. With the use of cancer and germline datasets and supervised learning techniques, our study shows that cancer mutation data can be leveraged to improve the interpretation of germline missense variation potentially causing rare Mendelian disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS GeneticsSame topicGenomics and Rare DiseasesFrench-language works237,207