MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414526368 · doi:10.1101/2025.09.23.678112

Screen-VarCal: An Interpretable Probabilistic Framework for Recalibrating ACMG Rule-Based Variant Classification in Preventive Medicine

2025· preprint· en· W4414526368 on OpenAlexaff
Divya Mishra, Alok Tiwari, Shivani Srivastava, Anmol Kapoor

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsOntario Drive & Gear (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicFalse positive paradoxHeuristicsZygosityLogistic regressionMedical geneticsTask (project management)Context (archaeology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Motivation hole-genome sequencing (WGS) is increasingly used for preventive genomics, yet rule-based ACMG engines such as InterVar were tuned for high pre-test probability diagnostics. In screening contexts, these heuristics can inflate pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) calls, prompting unnecessary follow-up. We sought an interpretable, data-driven recalibration tailored to proactive use. Results Across 20 WGS cases, InterVar flagged 109 variants as P/LP; only 18 (16.5%) were concordant with ClinVar P/LP assertions. The remaining 83.5% were largely absent from Clin-Var (n=68) or mapped to benign/likely benign (n=13). Nearly all flagged variants (96%) were heterozygous, predominantly in autosomal recessive genes (e.g., FAM20C, MTMR2 ), indicating a dominant carrier inflation effect; recurrent loci (e.g., ATXN3, FAM20C ) further amplified yield. We introduce Screen-VarCal , an interpretable probabilistic framework that combines logistic regression with isotonic adjustment to align InterVar outputs with observed ClinVar P/LP distributions. Screen-VarCal reduced false positives by ∼ 60% while retaining all ClinVar-concordant findings and yields calibrated probabilities with coefficients that transparently link ACMG evidence categories (PVS/PS/PM/PP/BS/BP) and zygosity to risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207