Whole Genome Sequencing as a Diagnostic Test: Challenges and Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extraordinary technological advances and decreases in the cost of DNA sequencing have made the possibility of whole genome sequencing (WGS) as a highly accessible clinical test for numerous indications feasible. There have been many recent, successful applications of WGS in establishing the etiology of complex diseases and guiding therapeutic decision-making in neoplastic and nonneoplastic diseases and in various aspects of reproductive health. However, there are major, but not insurmountable, obstacles to the increased clinical implementation of WGS, such as hidden costs, issues surrounding sequencing and analysis, quality assurance and standardization protocols, ethical dilemmas, and difficulties with interpretation of the results. CONTENT: The widespread use of WGS in routine clinical practice remains a distant proposition. Prospective trials will be needed to establish if, and for whom, the benefits of WGS will outweigh the likely substantial costs associated with follow-up tests, the risks of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and the associated emotional distress. SUMMARY: WGS should be carefully implemented in the clinic to allow the realization of its potential to improve patient health in specific indications. To minimize harm the use of WGS for all other reasons must be carefully evaluated before clinical implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".