Analysis of more than 400,000 women provides case-control evidence for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical genetic testing identifies variants causal for hereditary cancer, information that is used for risk assessment and clinical management. Unfortunately, some variants identified are of uncertain clinical significance (VUS), complicating patient management. Case-control data is one evidence type used to classify VUS. As an initiative of the Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles (ENIGMA) Analytical Working Group we analyze germline sequencing data of BRCA1 and BRCA2 from 96,691 female breast cancer cases and 302,116 controls from three studies: the BRIDGES study of the Breast Cancer Association Consortium, the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility consortium, and the UK Biobank. We observe 11,207 BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants, with 6909 being coding, covering 23.4% of BRCA1 and BRCA2 VUS in ClinVar and 19.2% of ClinVar curated (likely) benign or pathogenic variants. Case-control likelihood ratio (ccLR) evidence is highly consistent with ClinVar assertions for (likely) benign or pathogenic variants; exhibiting 99.1% sensitivity and 95.3% specificity for BRCA1 and 93.3% sensitivity and 86.6% specificity for BRCA2. This approach provides case-control evidence for 787 unclassified variants; these include 579 with strong or moderate benign evidence and 10 with strong pathogenic evidence for which ccLR evidence is sufficient to alter clinical classification.
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".