Kymberleigh A. Pagel

Recommendations from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) for interpreting sequence variants specify the use of computational predictors as “supporting” level of evidence for pathogenicity or benignity using criteria PP3 and BP4, respectively. However, score intervals defined by tool developers, and ACMG/AMP recommendations that require the consensus of multiple predictors, lack quantitative support.

Abstract Recommendations from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) for interpreting sequence variants specify the use of computational predictors as Supporting level of evidence for pathogenicity or benignity using criteria PP3 and BP4, respectively. However, score intervals defined by tool developers, and ACMG/AMP recommendations that require the consensus of multiple predictors, lack quantitative support.

Next-generation sequencing technologies have greatly reduced the cost of genome sequencing, increasing the availability of genomic data and the need for methods to evaluate genomic variants. The majority of variants have unclassified phenotypic consequences, and their systematic exploration is complicated by data resources that are not easily obtainable or combinable.