Recently, we demonstrated that the qualitative American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Medical Pathology (ACMG/AMP) guidelines for evaluation of Mendelian disease gene variants are fundamentally compatible with a quantitative Bayesian formulation. Here, we show that the underlying ACMG/AMP \"strength of evidence categories\" can be abstracted into a point system. These points are proportional to Log(odds), are additive, and produce a system that recapitulates the Bayesian formulation of the ACMG/AMP guidelines. The strengths of this system are its simplicity and that the connection between point values and odds of pathogenicity allows empirical calibration of the strength of evidence for individual data types. Weaknesses include that a narrow range of prior probabilities is locked in and that the Bayesian nature of the system is inapparent. We conclude that a points-based system has the practical attribute of user-friendliness and can be useful so long as the underlying Bayesian principles are acknowledged.

We evaluated the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) variant pathogenicity guidelines for internal consistency and compatibility with Bayesian statistical reasoning.
The ACMG/AMP criteria were translated into a naive Bayesian classifier, assuming four levels of evidence and exponentially scaled odds of pathogenicity. We tested this framework with a range of prior probabilities and odds of pathogenicity.
We modeled the ACMG/AMP guidelines using biologically plausible assumptions. Most ACMG/AMP combining criteria were compatible. One ACMG/AMP likely pathogenic combination was mathematically equivalent to pathogenic and one ACMG/AMP pathogenic combination was actually likely pathogenic. We modeled combinations that include evidence for and against pathogenicity, showing that our approach scored some combinations as pathogenic or likely pathogenic that ACMG/AMP would designate as variant of uncertain significance (VUS).
By transforming the ACMG/AMP guidelines into a Bayesian framework, we provide a mathematical foundation for what was a qualitative heuristic. Only 2 of the 18 existing ACMG/AMP evidence combinations were mathematically inconsistent with the overall framework. Mixed combinations of pathogenic and benign evidence could yield a likely pathogenic, likely benign, or VUS result. This quantitative framework validates the approach adopted by the ACMG/AMP, provides opportunities to further refine evidence categories and combining rules, and supports efforts to automate components of variant pathogenicity assessments.