Genetics & Genomics AI Standard of Care: Variant Interpretation, Genetic Testing, and Pharmacogenomics

AI Decodes the Human Genome

#

Genomic medicine has entered a new era. With over 20,000 human genes and millions of potential variants, artificial intelligence has become essential for interpreting the clinical significance of genetic findings. From AI systems that classify variants as pathogenic or benign to algorithms that predict drug response based on pharmacogenomic profiles, these tools are reshaping how genetic information translates to patient care. But when AI misclassifies a variant, leading to unnecessary surgery or missed cancer diagnosis, the consequences can be devastating.

This guide examines the standard of care for AI use in clinical genetics, the complex landscape of variant interpretation algorithms, and the emerging liability framework for AI-assisted genomic medicine.

The Genomics AI Landscape

#

Variant Interpretation Systems

#

AI systems classify genetic variants to determine clinical actionability:

Major AI Variant Interpretation Systems:

AlphaMissense Breakthrough (2023): DeepMind’s AlphaMissense system, building on AlphaFold’s protein structure prediction, classifies 89% of all possible human missense variants with 90%+ accuracy. This represents a transformative advance:71 million variants classified versus ~2% previously characterized.

How AI Variant Interpretation Works:

Modern systems integrate:

• Sequence conservation across species
• Protein structure and function prediction
• Population frequency data
• Functional assay results
• Literature and database evidence
• Machine learning pattern recognition

Genetic Testing Laboratory AI

#

Laboratory Information Systems: AI assists throughout the genetic testing workflow:

FDA-Authorized Genetic Tests with AI Components:

• 23andMe Pharmacogenetic Reports (multiple drug-gene pairs)
• Color Genomics hereditary cancer panel
• Invitae comprehensive cancer panel
• Various carrier screening panels

Pharmacogenomics Decision Support

#

AI systems translate genetic variants into prescribing guidance:

Clinical Decision Support Systems:

The CPIC Framework: Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium provides evidence-based guidelines for drug-gene pairs. AI systems operationalize these guidelines, but implementation varies significantly across institutions.

Key Drug-Gene Interactions:

• CYP2D6 and codeine/tramadol metabolism
• CYP2C19 and clopidogrel response
• HLA-B*57:01 and abacavir hypersensitivity
• DPYD and fluoropyrimidine toxicity
• TPMT and thiopurine dosing

Regulatory Framework

#

FDA Oversight of Genetic AI

#

Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs): Most genetic tests, including AI-assisted interpretation, are performed as LDTs under CLIA laboratory certification rather than FDA clearance. This regulatory framework is evolving.

FDA-Authorized Genetic Tests: Selected genetic tests have received FDA authorization:

• Direct-to-consumer pharmacogenomics (23andMe)
• BRCA1/2 testing (23andMe, with limitations)
• Specific carrier screening tests

Evolving Regulation: FDA has signaled intention to increase oversight of LDTs, including AI components. The VALID Act (if enacted) would create new regulatory pathways for laboratory tests.

CLIA and CAP Requirements

#

Laboratory Standards:

• Analytical validation required for all testing
• Clinical validation for new methodologies
• Proficiency testing participation
• Quality assurance programs
• Personnel qualification requirements

AI-Specific Considerations:

• Validation of AI variant classification
• Documentation of algorithm training and updates
• Comparison with established methods
• Monitoring for classification drift

Professional Guidelines

#

ACMG/AMP Variant Interpretation Guidelines (2015, updated): The foundational framework for variant classification:

AI’s Role in ACMG Framework: AI systems provide evidence weights for ACMG criteria, but final classification should involve human expert review. The guidelines explicitly state that computational evidence alone is insufficient for pathogenic classification.

Liability Framework

#

The Variant Classification Problem

#

Misclassification Consequences:

False Pathogenic:

• Unnecessary prophylactic surgery (mastectomy, colectomy)
• Inappropriate cancer surveillance
• Family member anxiety and testing cascade
• Lost opportunity for actual cause identification

False Benign:

• Missed cancer predisposition diagnosis
• Inadequate surveillance
• Preventable cancer development
• Family member risk underestimation

VUS Challenges:

• Patient and physician uncertainty
• Inappropriate clinical action based on VUS
• Failure to recontact when VUS reclassified
• Insurance and employment implications

Liability Allocation

#

Laboratory Responsibility:

• Accurate analytical testing
• Appropriate variant classification
• Clear reporting of uncertainty
• Recontact policies for reclassifications
• Qualified personnel and AI validation

Ordering Physician Responsibility:

• Appropriate test selection
• Pre-test counseling and consent
• Interpretation in clinical context
• Management based on classification
• Communication of uncertainty

Genetic Counselor Responsibility:

• Accurate risk communication
• Explanation of AI role in interpretation
• VUS management guidance
• Family implications counseling
• Coordination of care

AI Developer Responsibility:

• Accurate representation of capabilities
• Clear documentation of limitations
• Validation across diverse populations
• Updates for new evidence
• Post-market performance monitoring

Direct-to-Consumer Testing Liability

#

Unique Challenges:

• No physician intermediary
• Consumer misunderstanding of results
• Limited clinical context
• Inconsistent regulation
• Varied accuracy across populations

Notable Incidents:

• False positive BRCA results causing inappropriate surgery
• Ancestry tests revealing unexpected parentage
• Health risk misinterpretation leading to anxiety or false reassurance

Clinical Applications and Risk Areas

#

Hereditary Cancer Testing

#

AI in Cancer Gene Interpretation:

• BRCA1/2 variant classification
• Lynch syndrome gene analysis
• Multi-gene panel interpretation
• Somatic tumor profiling

High-Stakes Decisions: Pathogenic variants may lead to:

• Prophylactic mastectomy (BRCA1/2)
• Colectomy (Lynch syndrome)
• Intensified surveillance protocols
• Risk-reducing medications (tamoxifen)
• Family testing recommendations

Liability Scenario: AI classifies a BRCA2 variant as likely pathogenic. Patient undergoes bilateral mastectomy. Subsequent data leads to VUS reclassification. The original classification was reasonable given available evidence, but was AI reliance appropriate?

Rare Disease Diagnosis

#

The Diagnostic Odyssey: Rare disease patients average 5-7 years to diagnosis, seeing 7+ specialists. AI promises to accelerate diagnosis through:

• Rapid variant prioritization
• Phenotype-genotype correlation
• Novel gene-disease associations
• Literature mining

FDA Breakthrough Designation: Several AI-assisted rare disease diagnostic platforms have received Breakthrough Device designation, recognizing unmet medical need.

Challenges:

• Limited training data for rare conditions
• Novel variant interpretation
• Phenotype heterogeneity
• Family study coordination

Pharmacogenomics Implementation

#

Clinical Decision Points:

• Pre-prescription genotyping
• Post-adverse event testing
• Drug selection guidance
• Dosing optimization

Liability Considerations:

• Failure to test before high-risk prescribing (codeine to poor metabolizers)
• Ignoring pharmacogenomic results
• Over-interpretation leading to inappropriate drug avoidance
• Failure to consider drug-drug-gene interactions

The Standard of Care Question: Is pre-prescription pharmacogenomic testing required? For certain drug-gene pairs (abacavir-HLA-B57:01, carbamazepine-HLA-B15:02 in certain populations), testing before prescribing is standard of care. For others, the standard is evolving.

Prenatal and Preconception Testing

#

AI Applications:

• Non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) interpretation
• Carrier screening panel analysis
• Preimplantation genetic testing
• Cell-free fetal DNA analysis

Heightened Liability: Reproductive decisions carry unique implications:

• Pregnancy termination based on results
• Donor selection for assisted reproduction
• Embryo selection in IVF
• Family planning decisions

False Positive/Negative Consequences: False positive NIPS results may lead to unnecessary invasive testing or pregnancy termination. False negative results may lead to unexpected affected child birth.

Professional Society Guidance

#

American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

#

Statements on AI in Genetics:

• AI tools should augment, not replace, expert interpretation
• Validation required before clinical implementation
• Transparency in AI methodology essential
• Diverse population representation in training data
• Ongoing monitoring for performance drift

Variant Interpretation Standards: ACMG/AMP guidelines provide the framework within which AI tools operate. AI can provide evidence weights, but classification decisions should involve human oversight.

National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC)

#

Position on Technology:

• Genetic counselors should understand AI capabilities and limitations
• Patient communication should include AI’s role
• Counselors maintain interpretive responsibility
• Continuing education on AI technologies essential

College of American Pathologists (CAP)

#

Laboratory Accreditation Standards:

• Validation required for all AI components
• Documentation of algorithm performance
• Proficiency testing including AI-interpreted cases
• Quality assurance monitoring

Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC)

#

Guidelines for AI Implementation:

• Evidence-based drug-gene pair guidelines
• Standardized translation to clinical action
• EHR integration recommendations
• Ongoing guideline updates as evidence evolves

Standard of Care for Genetics AI

#

What Reasonable Use Looks Like

#

Laboratory Implementation:

• Validate AI tools against established methods
• Document algorithm training and limitations
• Maintain human oversight of classifications
• Establish recontact policies for reclassifications
• Monitor performance across diverse populations

Clinical Interpretation:

• AI recommendations are advisory, not determinative
• Consider clinical context beyond genetic findings
• Communicate uncertainty, especially for VUS
• Document reasoning for clinical decisions
• Plan for evolving classification

Patient Communication:

• Explain AI’s role in interpretation
• Discuss limitations and uncertainty
• Address diverse population considerations
• Provide resources for ongoing information
• Establish expectations for recontact

What Falls Below Standard

#

Laboratory Failures:

• Deploying unvalidated AI tools
• No human review of AI classifications
• Inadequate population diversity consideration
• No recontact policy or implementation
• Ignoring algorithm updates or drift

Clinical Failures:

• Treating AI classification as definitive
• Acting on VUS as if pathogenic
• Failing to communicate uncertainty
• No genetic counseling for complex results
• Ignoring pharmacogenomic guidance for high-risk prescribing

Systemic Failures:

• No quality monitoring of AI performance
• Inadequate personnel training
• Suppressing uncertainty in reports
• Failing to update for reclassifications

Malpractice Considerations

#

Emerging Case Patterns

#

Variant Misclassification:

• AI classified variant as pathogenic
• Patient underwent prophylactic surgery
• Variant reclassified as VUS or benign
• Claims against laboratory, physician, AI developer

Missed Pathogenic Variant:

• AI classified variant as benign
• Patient developed preventable cancer
• Variant later recognized as pathogenic
• Failure to identify versus failure to recontact

Pharmacogenomics Failure:

• Patient prescribed medication contraindicated by genotype
• Adverse event occurred
• Pharmacogenomic testing available but not performed
• Or testing performed but guidance not followed

Direct-to-Consumer Misinterpretation:

• Consumer test provided inaccurate result
• Consumer took inappropriate action
• No physician intermediary
• Company liability under various theories

Defense Strategies

#

For Laboratories:

• Documentation of validation studies
• Evidence of human oversight
• ACMG guideline compliance
• Recontact policy and implementation
• Classification reasonable given available evidence

For Physicians:

• Appropriate test selection documentation
• Pre-test counseling records
• Clinical judgment in interpretation
• Communication of uncertainty
• Follow-up planning for VUS

For AI Developers:

• Validation documentation
• Clear labeling of limitations
• Accuracy representation based on studies
• Post-market surveillance compliance
• Training data diversity documentation

The Recontact Dilemma

#

Current Standards: No universal requirement for laboratory recontact when variants are reclassified. ACMG recommends laboratories have policies, but implementation varies widely.

Liability Exposure: Failure to recontact when VUS is reclassified as pathogenic may expose laboratories to liability if patient suffers preventable harm. But universal recontact is resource-prohibitive.

Emerging Solutions:

• Patient portals for result updates
• Automated reclassification notification systems
• Shared databases with recontact infrastructure
• Professional guidelines strengthening

Diversity and Bias Considerations

#

Population Representation

#

The Problem: Most genomic databases and AI training data over-represent European ancestry populations. This creates:

• Higher VUS rates in underrepresented populations
• Lower diagnostic yield for minority patients
• Misclassification risk due to population-specific variants
• Health equity concerns

AI Implications: AI systems trained on biased data perpetuate and potentially amplify disparities. Validation across diverse populations is essential but often lacking.

Addressing Bias

#

Best Practices:

• Evaluate AI performance across ancestral groups
• Report population-specific accuracy metrics
• Consider population context in interpretation
• Contribute to diverse databases
• Acknowledge limitations in reports

Frequently Asked Questions

#

Related Resources

#

AI Liability Framework

#

• AI Misdiagnosis Case Tracker, Diagnostic failure documentation
• AI Product Liability, Strict liability for AI systems
• Healthcare AI Standard of Care, Overview of medical AI standards

Related Healthcare AI

#

• Radiology AI Standard of Care, Diagnostic imaging AI
• Pathology AI, Digital pathology and cancer diagnosis
• Oncology AI, Cancer treatment AI

Emerging Litigation

#

• AI Litigation Landscape 2025, Overview of AI lawsuits