E-viri
PDF
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
-
Stark, Zornitza; Foulger, Rebecca E.; Williams, Eleanor; Thompson, Bryony A.; Patel, Chirag; Lunke, Sebastian; Snow, Catherine; Leong, Ivone U.S.; Puzriakova, Arina; Daugherty, Louise C.; Leigh, Sarah; Boustred, Christopher; Niblock, Olivia; Rueda-Martin, Antonio; Gerasimenko, Oleg; Savage, Kevin; Bellamy, William; Lin, Victor San Kho; Valls, Roman; Gordon, Lavinia; Brittain, Helen K.; Thomas, Ellen R.A.; Taylor Tavares, Ana Lisa; McEntagart, Meriel; White, Susan M.; Tan, Tiong Y.; Yeung, Alison; Downie, Lilian; Macciocca, Ivan; Savva, Elena; Lee, Crystle; Roesley, Ain; De Fazio, Paul; Deller, Jane; Deans, Zandra C.; Hill, Sue L.; Caulfield, Mark J.; North, Kathryn N.; Scott, Richard H.; Rendon, Augusto; Hofmann, Oliver; McDonagh, Ellen M.
American journal of human genetics, 09/2021, Letnik: 108, Številka: 9Journal Article
Clinical validity assessments of gene-disease associations underpin analysis and reporting in diagnostic genomics, and yet wide variability exists in practice, particularly in use of these assessments for virtual gene panel design and maintenance. Harmonization efforts are hampered by the lack of agreed terminology, agreed gene curation standards, and platforms that can be used to identify and resolve discrepancies at scale. We undertook a systematic comparison of the content of 80 virtual gene panels used in two healthcare systems by multiple diagnostic providers in the United Kingdom and Australia. The process was enabled by a shared curation platform, PanelApp, and resulted in the identification and review of 2,144 discordant gene ratings, demonstrating the utility of sharing structured gene-disease validity assessments and collaborative discordance resolution in establishing national and international consensus. Clinical validity assessments of gene-disease associations underpin analysis and reporting in diagnostic genomics, and yet wide variability exists in practice, particularly in use of these assessments for virtual gene panel design and maintenance. Harmonization efforts are hampered by the lack of agreed terminology, agreed gene curation standards, and platforms that can be used to identify and resolve discrepancies at scale. We undertook a systematic comparison of the content of 80 virtual gene panels used in two healthcare systems by multiple diagnostic providers in the United Kingdom and Australia. The process was enabled by a shared curation platform, PanelApp, and resulted in the identification and review of 2,144 discordant gene ratings, demonstrating the utility of sharing structured gene-disease validity assessments and collaborative discordance resolution in establishing national and international consensus.
