Skip to main content

Table 2 Concordance among combinations of algorithms across all variants using publicly available thresholds.

From: Evaluation of in silico algorithms for use with ACMG/AMP clinical variant interpretation guidelines

Algorithms (n) Algorithms Overall true concordance (%) Overall false concordance (%)
2 REVEL, MetaSVM 83.4 7.8
3 VEST3, REVEL, MetaSVM* 75.6 4.1
4 Polyphen2, REVEL, MetaSVM, Eigen* 69.3 4.1
5 Provean, Polyphen2, REVEL, MetaSVM, Eigen 64.5 3.2
  1. Asterisks indicate that there were combinations with higher concordance but they included MetaSVM and MetaLR (see text)