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)