Problems in variation interpretation guidelines and in their implementation in computational tools
Abstract Background ACMG/AMP and AMP/ASCO/CAP have released guidelines for variation interpretation, and ESHG for diagnostic sequencing. These guidelines contain recommendations including the use of computational prediction methods. The guidelines per se and the way they are implemented cause some p...
Main Author: | Mauno Vihinen |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Wiley
2020-09-01
|
Series: | Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.1206 |
Similar Items
-
Quantitative approaches to variant classification increase the yield and precision of genetic testing in Mendelian diseases: the case of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
by: Roddy Walsh, et al.
Published: (2019-01-01) -
APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2 Variants in Alzheimer’s Disease: Systematic Re-evaluation According to ACMG Guidelines
by: Xuewen Xiao, et al.
Published: (2021-06-01) -
Variant effect prediction tools assessed using independent, functional assay-based datasets: implications for discovery and diagnostics
by: Khalid Mahmood, et al.
Published: (2017-05-01) -
Representativeness of variation benchmark datasets
by: Gerard C. P. Schaafsma, et al.
Published: (2018-11-01) -
Targeted sequencing identifies novel variants in common and rare MODY genes
by: Lucas S. deSantana, et al.
Published: (2019-12-01)