You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, clinical interpretations rely on three reported variant creators according to the interpretation analysis (Tiering, TEAM or default). They are responsible of creating the reported events (per disease panel and transcript) for each variant. Basically, a reported event consists of a panel disease, a list of sequence ontology terms (consequence types), the role in cancer, the ACMG classification, the clinical significance and a tier. Only assigning the tier is analysis dependent, so we should merge that reported variant creators in one creator, and delegate the tier assignation to the interpretation analysis itself.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently, clinical interpretations rely on three reported variant creators according to the interpretation analysis (Tiering, TEAM or default). They are responsible of creating the reported events (per disease panel and transcript) for each variant. Basically, a reported event consists of a panel disease, a list of sequence ontology terms (consequence types), the role in cancer, the ACMG classification, the clinical significance and a tier. Only assigning the tier is analysis dependent, so we should merge that reported variant creators in one creator, and delegate the tier assignation to the interpretation analysis itself.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: