Comparison methodology
Compare automated ACMG/AMP tools by contract, not by one label
A useful comparison starts with a versioned public variant set and tests identity resolution, evidence availability, criterion-level output, provenance, failure states and reproducibility. It should not assume that two products answer the same question.
Try the task
Evaluate the same public GRCh38 variants and record every tool version, source version and unsupported case.
Connect through https://api.helena.bio/folklore/v1/mcp or follow the connector guide.
Minimum comparison dimensions
Classification concordance alone can hide different transcripts, alleles, source versions and unsupported cases. Record the complete contract for every result.
- Supported assemblies and variant types
- Normalization and ambiguity behavior
- Criterion-level output
- Evidence provenance and source versions
- Unavailable and unsupported states
- Reproducibility across repeated runs
- Patient-data and clinical-use boundaries
- Programmatic and agent-facing interfaces
No unsupported winner claim
Folklore Clinical Variant Interpretation MCP should enter a scientific comparison through a preregistered method and an appropriate evaluation set. A marketing page is not independent validation and cannot establish that one tool is best.
Public scientific boundary
Folklore Clinical Variant Interpretation MCP accepts public variant-level queries only. Do not send patient, phenotype, family, segregation or private case data. Results are automated decision support for qualified professional review, not a diagnosis or treatment recommendation.