A literature review at genome scale: improving clinical variant assessment

Purpose: Over 150,000 variants have been reported to cause Mendelian disease in the medical literature. It is still difficult to leverage this knowledge base in clinical practice, as many reports lack strong statistical evidence or may include false associations. Clinical laboratories assess whether these variants (along with newly observed variants that are adjacent to these published ones) underlie clinical disorders. Methods: We investigated whether citation data—including journal impact factor and the number of cited variants (NCV) in each gene with published disease associations—can be used to improve variant assessment. Results: Surprisingly, we found that impact factor is not predictive of pathogenicity, but the NCV score for each gene can provide statistical support for prediction of pathogenicity. When this gene-level citation metric is combined with variant-level evolutionary conservation and structural features, classification accuracy reaches 89.5%. Further, variants identified in clinical exome sequencing cases have higher NCVs than do simulated rare variants from the Exome Aggregation Consortium database within the same set of genes and functional consequences (P < 2.22 × 10⁻¹⁶). Conclusion: Aggregate citation data can complement existing variant-based predictive algorithms, and can boost their performance without the need to access and review large numbers of papers. The NCV is a slow-growing metric of scientific knowledge about each gene’s association with disease.