Abstract:Background: Interpreting the clinical consequences of genetic variants is the central problem in modern clinical genomics, for both hereditary diseases and oncology. However, clinical validation lags behind the pace of discovery, leading to distressing uncertainty for patients, physicians and researchers. This "interpretation gap" changes over time as evidence accumulates, and variants initially deemed of uncertain (VUS) significance may be subsequently reclassified in pathogenic/benign. We previously developed RENOVO, a random forest-based tool able to predict variant pathogenicity based on publicly available information from GnomAD and dbNFSP, and tested on variants that have changed their classification status over time. Here, we comprehensively evaluated the accuracy of RENOVO predictions on variants that have been reclassified over the last four years. Methods: we retrieved 16 retrospective instances of the ClinVar database, every 3 months since March 2020 to March 2024, and analyzed time trends of variant classifications. We identified variants that changed their status over time and compared RENOVO predictions generated in 2020 with the actual reclassifications. Results: VUS have become the most represented class in ClinVar (44.97% vs. 9.75% (likely) pathogenic and 40,33% (likely) benign). The rate of VUS reclassification is linear and slow compared to the rate of VUS reporting, exponential and currently ~ 30x faster, creating a growing divide between what can be sequenced vs. what can be interpreted. Out of 10,196 VUS variants in January 2020 that have undergone a clinically meaningful reclassification to march 2024, RENOVO correctly classified 82.6% in 2020. In addition, RENOVO correctly identified the majority of the few variants that switched clinically meaningful classes (e.g., from benign to pathogenic and vice versa). We highlight variant classes and clinically relevant genes for which RENOVO provides particularly accurate estimates. In particularly, genes characterized by large prevalence of high- or low-impact variants (e.g., POLE, NOTCH1, FANCM etc.). Suboptimal RENOVO predictions mostly concern genes validated through dedicated consortia (e.g., BRCA1/2), in which RENOVO would anyway have a limited impact. Conclusions: Time trend analysis demonstrates that the current model of variant interpretation cannot keep up with variant discovery. Machine learning-based tools like RENOVO confirm high accuracy that can aid in clinical practice and research.

The Impact of Clinical and Molecular Variant Properties on Calibration and Performance of Variant Effect Prediction Tools

Variant effect predictor correlation with functional assays is reflective of clinical classification performance

Assessment of variant effect predictors unveils variants difficulty as a critical performance indicator

Understanding the heterogeneous performance of variant effect predictors across human protein-coding genes

Pervasive ancestry bias in variant effect predictors

Guidelines for releasing a variant effect predictor

Toward Automatic Variant Interpretation: Discordant Genetic Interpretation Across Variant Annotations for ClinVar Pathogenic Variants

Updated benchmarking of variant effect predictors using deep mutational scanning

Evaluating novel in silico tools for accurate pathogenicity classification in epilepsy‐associated genetic missense variants

Accuracy of renovo predictions on variants reclassified over time

Variant classification changes over time in the clinical molecular diagnostic laboratory setting

The frequency of gene variant reclassification and its impact on clinical management in the inherited arrhythmia clinic

Variant effect predictors: a systematic review and practical guide

Variant scoring performance across selection regimes depends on variant-to-gene and gene-to-disease components

Discordance between a deep learning model and clinical-grade variant pathogenicity classification in a rare disease cohort

Automated variant re-evaluation is labor-balanced and gives clinically relevant results: Hereditary cardiac disease as a use case

A New Era in Missense Variant Analysis: Statistical Insights and the Introduction of VAMPP-Score for Pathogenicity Assessment

AI-derived comparative assessment of the performance of pathogenicity prediction tools on missense variants of breast cancer genes

Characterizing the pathogenicity of genetic variants: the consequences of context

REVEL: an Ensemble Method for Predicting the Pathogenicity of Rare Missense Variants