PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 6, 2026SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología3 citationsOpen Access

Exploring the strengths and limitations of AI-driven variant prioritization versus manual curation in inborn errors of immunity

LMLaith Ibrahim MoushibNMNerea Moreno-RuizAMAndrea Martín-Nalda

Key Points

  • The research aims to assess the effectiveness of AI platforms for variant prioritization in patients with inborn errors of immunity, comparing them to manual curation.
  • Analyzed 22 unsolved cases of inborn errors of immunity.
  • Conducted whole-genome sequencing on the cases.
  • Used two AI-driven platforms (AIMARRVEL and AION) for variant prioritization along with manual curation.
  • Classified selected variants based on clinical relevance using molecular and phenotypic evidence.
  • AI platforms efficiently prioritized variants with clear pathogenic features, comparable to manual curation.
  • Achieved a conclusive diagnosis in one patient (5%); four patients (18%) had variants of high clinical relevance.
  • Identified medium-relevance variants in 36% of cases, lacking sufficient evidence for functional validation.
  • Concordance between AIMARRVEL and AION was limited, especially for variants of uncertain significance.

Abstract

Introduction Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has transformed the genetic diagnosis of human diseases, yet many patients remain unsolved due to the complexity of variant interpretation. Manual curation of candidate variants is effective but time-consuming and requires specialized expertise. Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven platforms have emerged as scalable tools for variant prioritization, yet their performance compared with manual curation remains insufficiently evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of AI-driven platforms for variant prioritization in a cohort of patients with inborn errors of immunity (IEI) and to compare their strengths and limitations with manual curation. Methods We analyzed 22 unsolved IEI cases that had previously undergone inconclusive NGS studies. Whole-genome sequencing was performed, and variant prioritization was carried out using two AI-driven platforms -AIMARRVEL and AION (Nostos Genomics)- and by manual curation. Selected variants were classified according to clinical relevance (very high, high, medium, or low), integrating both molecular and phenotypic evidence. Results Across the cohort, AI platforms efficiently prioritized variants with clear pathogenic features, often reaching the same conclusions as manual curation but in a fraction of the time. One patient (5%) received a conclusive diagnosis ( FAM111B ), and four patients (18%) carried variants of high clinical relevance, including strong disease-causing candidates in CD247 and SH2B3 . Additional medium-relevance variants were identified in 36% of cases, although evidence was insufficient for functional validation. Notably, concordance between AIMARRVEL and AION was limited, particularly for variants of uncertain significance (VUS), reflecting differences in algorithmic weighting of variant features versus clinical phenotype. Both platforms also highlighted potentially novel associations in RUNX1 and TRAF7 , underscoring their capacity to extend beyond classical IEI genes. Discussion Our results show that AI-driven tools are powerful for detecting clearly pathogenic variants and can markedly accelerate the diagnostic process. However, their strong reliance on curated databases, limited incorporation of phenotypic data, and challenges in handling VUS may reduce their effectiveness. Enhancing phenotype integration, expanding annotations (including non-coding regions), and incorporating up-to-date literature could improve their performance. Ultimately, AI tools should complement expert curation, with future models evolving toward integrative approaches that better capture the complexity of human disorders.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Moushib et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69aa6f3c531e4c4a9ff5949fhttps://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2026.1713299
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper