E-viri
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
-
Houge, Gunnar; Bratland, Eirik; Aukrust, Ingvild; Tveten, Kristian; Žukauskaitė, Gabrielė; Sansovic, Ivona; Brea-Fernández, Alejandro J; Mayer, Karin; Paakkola, Teija; McKenna, Caoimhe; Wright, William; Markovic, Milica Keckarevic; Lildballe, Dorte L; Konecny, Michal; Smol, Thomas; Alhopuro, Pia; Gouttenoire, Estelle Arnaud; Obeid, Katharina; Todorova, Albena; Jankovic, Milena; Lubieniecka, Joanna M; Stojiljkovic, Maja; Buisine, Marie-Pierre; Haukanes, Bjørn Ivar; Lorans, Marie; Roomere, Hanno; Petit, François M; Haanpää, Maria K; Beneteau, Claire; Pérez, Belén; Plaseska-Karanfilska, Dijana; Rath, Matthias; Fuhrmann, Nico; Ferreira, Bibiana I; Stephanou, Coralea; Sjursen, Wenche; Maver, Aleš; Rouzier, Cécile; Chirita-Emandi, Adela; Gonçalves, João; Kuek, Wei Cheng David; Broly, Martin; Haer-Wigman, Lonneke; Thong, Meow-Keong; Tae, Sok-Kun; Hyblova, Michaela; den Dunnen, Johan T; Laner, Andreas
European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 05/2024, Letnik: 32, Številka: 7Journal Article
The ABC and ACMG variant classification systems were compared by asking mainly European clinical laboratories to classify variants in 10 challenging cases using both systems, and to state if the variant in question would be reported as a relevant result or not as a measure of clinical utility. In contrast to the ABC system, the ACMG system was not made to guide variant reporting but to determine the likelihood of pathogenicity. Nevertheless, this comparison is justified since the ACMG class determines variant reporting in many laboratories. Forty-three laboratories participated in the survey. In seven cases, the classification system used did not influence the reporting likelihood when variants labeled as "maybe report" after ACMG-based classification were included. In three cases of population frequent but disease-associated variants, there was a difference in favor of reporting after ABC classification. A possible reason is that ABC step C (standard variant comments) allows a variant to be reported in one clinical setting but not another, e.g., based on Bayesian-based likelihood calculation of clinical relevance. Finally, the selection of ACMG criteria was compared between 36 laboratories. When excluding criteria used by less than four laboratories (<10%), the average concordance rate was 46%. Taken together, ABC-based classification is more clear-cut than ACMG-based classification since molecular and clinical information is handled separately, and variant reporting can be adapted to the clinical question and phenotype. Furthermore, variants do not get a clinically inappropriate label, like pathogenic when not pathogenic in a clinical context, or variant of unknown significance when the significance is known.
Avtor
![loading ... loading ...](themes/default/img/ajax-loading.gif)
Vnos na polico
Trajna povezava
- URL:
Faktor vpliva
Dostop do baze podatkov JCR je dovoljen samo uporabnikom iz Slovenije. Vaš trenutni IP-naslov ni na seznamu dovoljenih za dostop, zato je potrebna avtentikacija z ustreznim računom AAI.
Leto | Faktor vpliva | Izdaja | Kategorija | Razvrstitev | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
JCR | SNIP | JCR | SNIP | JCR | SNIP | JCR | SNIP |
Baze podatkov, v katerih je revija indeksirana
Ime baze podatkov | Področje | Leto |
---|
Povezave do osebnih bibliografij avtorjev | Povezave do podatkov o raziskovalcih v sistemu SICRIS |
---|
Vir: Osebne bibliografije
in: SICRIS
To gradivo vam je dostopno v celotnem besedilu. Če kljub temu želite naročiti gradivo, kliknite gumb Nadaljuj.