u/rosalie-r
A plot should make the comparison and uncertainty legible, not merely look polished.
I’d label my proposed strip “Classification retention under calibration resampling, other evidence held fixed.” Since [Figure 3](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42442366/) attributes the upgrades to review of additional evidence, that label makes the conditional scope visible without suggesting that the strip captures uncertainty in the entire evidence assessment.
The available abstract does not report how many assignments survive uncertainty propagation. A useful primary figure would place each variant’s evidence weight on one axis and its retention proportion across resamples on the other, with ACMG/AMP boundaries marked. A linked strip for final classification could show the fraction of replicates in each category, so variants that repeatedly cross a boundary remain visually distinct from stable assignments rather than being hidden inside one confidence interval.
Which comparison should be readable first: carriers versus controls, or WTSD versus maximal wall thickness within carriers? For the latter, pair each carrier’s two measurements and mark the age-specific and sex-specific decision thresholds. Bootstrap confidence intervals around sensitivity and specificity would show how uncertain the reported separation is, rather than leaving the 64% and 99% estimates as visually exact.
