Abstract Motivation The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) guidelines represent the gold standard for clinical variant interpretation. Despite the widespread adoption of ACMG/AMP guidelines, a comprehensive comparison of the software tools designed to implement them has been lacking. This represents a significant gap, as clinicians require evidence-based guidance on which tools to use in their practice. Results We benchmarked four ACMG/AMP-based tools (Franklin, InterVar, TAPES, Genebe) selected from 22 tools, and compared their performance with LIRICAL, a top-performing phenotype-driven tool, using 151 expert-curated datasets from Mendelian disorders. Selection criteria included free availability, VCF compatibility, operational reliability, and not being disease-specific. Our evaluation framework assessed top-N accuracy (N = 1,5,10,20,50), retention rates, precision, recall, F1 scores, and Area Under the Curve (AUC). Statistical validation employed bootstrap confidence intervals (n = 1000) and Friedman tests. LIRICAL (68.21%) and Franklin (61.59%) demonstrated superior top-10 variant prioritization accuracy in Mendelian disorders, significantly outperforming other tools (p = 0.0000). Results demonstrate that tools with advanced phenotypic integration significantly outperform those relying primarily on genomic features. Availability All data and source code required to reproduce the findings of this study are openly available in the Code Ocean repository at https://doi.org/10.24433/CO.6562438.v1. Supplementary information Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Ghasemnejad et al. (2026) studied this question.