Home
 /
Papers
 /
Genomics
 /
A scalable approach to resolving variants of uncertain significance
Preprint
Open access
V1
Top 1% · Validated by QED

A scalable approach to resolving variants of uncertain significance

Malvika Tejura, Yile Chen, Abbye E. McEwen +71 more
February 2026
 ·
bioRxiv
 ·
DOI 
10.64898/2026.02.14.705848
94
%
Reproducible
QED Impressions
This paper passed independent validation.
QED's automated review checked the evidence supporting each claim, the statistical methods, and whether the results are reproducible from the data provided.

It ranks in the top 1% of preprints assessed in Genomics this quarter.
Run full QED analysis
Read paper
Save

Why this is interesting

By showing that functional assays and computational predictions alone resolve 75% of uncertain variants and preclassify unseen ones before patients arrive, this work transforms variant interpretation from an intractable bottleneck into scalable clinical infrastructure.

QED claims analysis

Summary

Systematic generation of experimental variant effect data for 62,215 variants combined with automated calibration methods and computational predictions enables a scalable workflow that resolves 75% of existing variants of uncertain significance and preclassifies 62% of unobserved variants across 40 clinically relevant genes with less than 1% error, demonstrating that comprehensive functional characterization can eliminate most current and future VUS in genomic medicine.

See full analysis
Main Claim 1 –

Production-scale MAVEs accurately distinguish pathogenic from benign variants

Supporting evidence

  • Arrayed assays show orthogonal pathogenic effects requiring gene-specific assays
  • MAVE plus localization data distinguishes F9 degradation versus retention mechanisms
Main Claim 2 –

Integrated IGVF and community data covers 255,354 variants in 40 genes

Main Claim 3 –

ExCALIBR improves experimental-to-clinical evidence calibration accuracy

Supporting evidence

  • Gene-specific predictor calibration reduces misassigned evidence versus genome-wide
Main Claim 4 –

Experimental plus predictive workflow classifies variants with <1% discordance

Supporting evidence

  • Biobank data validates disease associations of experimental variant classifications

Abstract

Over 90% of missense variants across ∼4,000 disease-associated genes are variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Experimental variant effect measurements provide critical evidence about pathogenicity and inform disease biology, but most variants lack data and clinical translation has been limited. The Impact of Genomic Variation on Function Consortium generated experimental data for 62,215 variants across ten genes using multiplexed assays and 1,407 variants across 163 genes using arrayed assays, curated 193,139 additional community-generated variant effect measurements across 30 additional genes, and developed automated calibration methods for translating experimental data and variant effect predictions into clinical evidence. To reduce current VUS, we developed a scalable workflow using only experimental and predictive evidence, enabling reclassification of 75% of the 16,115 VUS in these genes as pathogenic or benign with <1% error. To minimize future VUS, we analyzed >90,000 unobserved variants; 62% had enough evidence to be “preclassified” as pathogenic or benign. We validated our data, evidence and classifications using All of Us and created interactive resources to enable clinical use of the calibrated data. Thus, for 40 genes, representing 1% of the clinical genome, we resolve most existing VUS and future variants, illustrating how systematic use of scalable evidence can empower genomic medicine.

Related papers

How the QED Score works

QED Score is a validated AI-based quality metric that evaluates life science papers on two dimensions: originality and validity. Each manuscript is anonymized, broken down into its claims and supporting evidence, and examined by specialized AI agents for statistical rigor, consistency across figures, and fit with the existing literature. Scores are percentile ranks, so they're comparable across fields. In blinded tests, expert professors sided with QED Score over journal rank in 75% of decisive cases.
Read the methodology

Free access for academic researchers

Create your free QED account to validate your research, strengthen grant proposals, and uncover scientific insights.
We've sent you an access link.
Please check your inbox.

Didn't get your email? Check your spam folder or reach out to info@qedscience.com

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Looking for QED for pharma, biotech or life science organizations?