As with the ClinVar set, all missense variants from genes without asingle pathogenic variant of any type in ClinVar were removed.
is this reasonable, is this different from how the tool creators did their accuracy assessments?
As with the ClinVar set, all missense variants from genes without asingle pathogenic variant of any type in ClinVar were removed.
is this reasonable, is this different from how the tool creators did their accuracy assessments?
the ClinVar 2019 set
isn’t this basically just predicting pathogenicity based on being in Clinvar? and with 1 star level being considered pathogenic?
Among these, all VUS, variants with a zero-star reviewstatus, i.e., without any detailed review information, and those with conflicting classificationswere excluded
dodgy labs might mark variant as pathogenic and link to assessment criteria but apply them wrongly. These might be detected if other labs post conflicting assessments. But for ultrarare variants, no other lab might have submitted that variant
An average individual exome has 10,000-12,000non-synonymous variants [13], 120 protein truncating variants, and ~54 variants previouslyreported as pathogenic
A guide to performing Polygenic Risk Score analyses
very detailed
Last evaluated:
last evaluated in 2015, but only submitted in 2019, does not make sense
complete destruction of carpal bones
HP:0001495
MAFB
progressive renal failure
urinary urgency
its working!
craniocervical junction compression
missing HPO
macrocephaly
HPO:000256