在解释中迷失:序列变异数据库错误的证据。

Adam Coovadia
{"title":"在解释中迷失:序列变异数据库错误的证据。","authors":"Adam Coovadia","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Variant databases serve as a resource for clinical molecular genetics laboratories. There is evidence of widespread interpretive and syntactic errors within the entries of both small and large-scale variant databases used for germline clinical molecular genetic interpretation reports. The over-dependence on variant databases for variant annotation, classification and reporting may be a potential source of error to clinical molecular genetics laboratories. Recent evidence suggests 12-50% of clinical test reports are in significant conflict with clinical reports from other laboratories. A non-systematic literature review of evidence of discrepancies within frequently used genetic variant databases used for generating clinical genetic tests is provided. The implications of and recommendations for addressing variant annotation, classification and interpretive errors are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":73975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association of Genetic Technologists","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lost in Interpretation: Evidence of Sequence Variant Database Errors.\",\"authors\":\"Adam Coovadia\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Variant databases serve as a resource for clinical molecular genetics laboratories. There is evidence of widespread interpretive and syntactic errors within the entries of both small and large-scale variant databases used for germline clinical molecular genetic interpretation reports. The over-dependence on variant databases for variant annotation, classification and reporting may be a potential source of error to clinical molecular genetics laboratories. Recent evidence suggests 12-50% of clinical test reports are in significant conflict with clinical reports from other laboratories. A non-systematic literature review of evidence of discrepancies within frequently used genetic variant databases used for generating clinical genetic tests is provided. The implications of and recommendations for addressing variant annotation, classification and interpretive errors are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73975,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Association of Genetic Technologists\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Association of Genetic Technologists\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Association of Genetic Technologists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

变异数据库可作为临床分子遗传学实验室的资源。有证据表明,在用于生殖系临床分子遗传解释报告的小型和大型变异数据库的条目中,存在广泛的解释和语法错误。过度依赖变异数据库进行变异注释、分类和报告可能是临床分子遗传学实验室的潜在错误来源。最近的证据表明,12-50%的临床检测报告与其他实验室的临床报告存在重大冲突。提供了用于生成临床基因检测的常用遗传变异数据库中差异证据的非系统文献综述。讨论了解决变体注释、分类和解释错误的含义和建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Lost in Interpretation: Evidence of Sequence Variant Database Errors.

Variant databases serve as a resource for clinical molecular genetics laboratories. There is evidence of widespread interpretive and syntactic errors within the entries of both small and large-scale variant databases used for germline clinical molecular genetic interpretation reports. The over-dependence on variant databases for variant annotation, classification and reporting may be a potential source of error to clinical molecular genetics laboratories. Recent evidence suggests 12-50% of clinical test reports are in significant conflict with clinical reports from other laboratories. A non-systematic literature review of evidence of discrepancies within frequently used genetic variant databases used for generating clinical genetic tests is provided. The implications of and recommendations for addressing variant annotation, classification and interpretive errors are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Case of a Patient with Therapy-related Core Binding Factor (CBF) Acute Myeloid Leukemia (CBF-AML). The Main Genetic-Molecular Aspects of Penile Cancer. The Molecular Breakthroughs in mRNA Biology and Pharmacology that Paved Progress to Develop Effective mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19. ETV6::RUNX1-like Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. Fanconi Anemia, AML, and MDS.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1