PuSH - Publikationsserver des Helmholtz Zentrums München: CAGI, the Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation, establishes progress and prospects for computational genetic variant interpretation methods.

Informationen

Hinweise zu Qualitätskriterien von Zeitschriften

Open-Access-Richtlinie der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft 2016

CC Licencences

Metriken für Publikationen

Navigation

Startseite

English

EVA: Veröffentlichen

Neuer EVA Antrag

Recherche

Erweiterte Suche

Durchblättern nach ...

... HMGU-Autoren/Konsortien

... Organisationsstruktur

... Zeitschriften

... Publikationstypen

... Forschungsdaten

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Erscheinungsjahr

Publikationen im Überblick

Statistik

HGF Fortschrittsbericht

OA Publikationen

Eintragen

Neue Publikation eintragen

Neue Publikation holen aus...

...EVA

Fehlende Publikation melden

Highlights

Suche

Hilfe & Kontakt

Ansprechpartner

Hilfe

Datenschutz

Helmholtz Open Science

Bibliometrische Indikatoren

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation Consortium (Müller, N.S.) ; Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation Consortium (Eraslan, G.)

CAGI, the Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation, establishes progress and prospects for computational genetic variant interpretation methods.

Genome Biol. 25:46 (2024)

Verlagsversion

DOI

	Open Access Gold

Abstract
Metriken
Zusatzinfos

Background: The Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation (CAGI) aims to advance the state-of-the-art for computational prediction of genetic variant impact, particularly where relevant to disease. The five complete editions of the CAGI community experiment comprised 50 challenges, in which participants made blind predictions of phenotypes from genetic data, and these were evaluated by independent assessors. Results: Performance was particularly strong for clinical pathogenic variants, including some difficult-to-diagnose cases, and extends to interpretation of cancer-related variants. Missense variant interpretation methods were able to estimate biochemical effects with increasing accuracy. Assessment of methods for regulatory variants and complex trait disease risk was less definitive and indicates performance potentially suitable for auxiliary use in the clinic. Conclusions: Results show that while current methods are imperfect, they have major utility for research and clinical applications. Emerging methods and increasingly large, robust datasets for training and assessment promise further progress ahead.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Web of Science
Times Cited

Altmetric

10.100

3.476