MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416150063 · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2025.100997

Benchmarking AlphaMissense against ClinVar for Diagnostic Interpretation of Missense Variants in Inherited Retinal Diseases

2025· article· en· W4416150063 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mark Lindquist, Samson Darrah, Stefan T. Stafie, Debarshi Mustafi

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmology Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Eye InstituteResearch to Prevent BlindnessFoundation Fighting Blindness
KeywordsBenchmarkingInterpretation (philosophy)Missense mutationRetinalGenetic testingDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose AlphaMissense is a newer deep learning-based variant predictor that evaluates the structural consequences of missense variants, the most common pathogenic variant type in inherited retinal diseases (IRDs). This study evaluates the diagnostic utility of AlphaMissense in IRDs by assessing its concordance with ClinVar annotations and exploring how other variant-level metrics may refine its predictions. Design Cross-sectional benchmarking study using public variant resources, with a single illustrative clinical case Participants Missense variants from 107 IRD genes; one patient case undergoing long-read sequencing. Methods Pathogenicity scores from AlphaMissense were extracted from 128,248 variants present in both IRD genes and gnomAD. Among these, 4,204 had definitive ClinVar classifications and were used to calculate AlphaMissense specificity, sensitivity, and false discovery rate (FDR). Population-based metrics including allele frequency, homozygote count, and CADD score were analyzed to identify salient features that would be associated with discordance. Long-read sequencing was carried out in a monoallelic ABCA4 patient with late-onset macular dystrophy for phased variant analysis Main Outcome Measures Concordance between AlphaMissense predictions and ClinVar annotations were used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and FDR. Variant level metrics between discordant variants. Case-based reclassification of hypomorphic variants with long-read sequencing. Results AlphaMissense achieved a specificity of 94.1% and sensitivity of 79.4% in IRD genes, with specificity reaching 100% in A BCA4, USH2A, RPGR, and PRPH2 , which are four of the most common IRD genes. The FDR was 9.6%. AlphaMissense underperformed in predicting hypomorphic variants, particularly in ABCA4 -associated Stargardt disease. Variant-level metrics were effective in identifying false negatives. In a clinical case, phased variant analysis identified a potential hypomorphic ABCA4 variant predicted as benign by AlphaMissense Conclusions AlphaMissense demonstrates high specificity for pathogenicity prediction in IRD-associated genes, however, its reduced sensitivity, as seen in hypomorphic variants, suggests a need to incorporate population and functional metrics scores may improve classification accuracy, especially long-read sequencing enables phased variant analysis.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.288 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmology ScienceSame topicGenomics and Rare DiseasesFrench-language works237,207