Prioritizing Clinically Relevant Copy Number Variation from Genetic Interactions and Gene Function Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is becoming increasingly necessary to develop computerized methods for identifying the few disease-causing variants from hundreds discovered in each individual patient. This problem is especially relevant for Copy Number Variants (CNVs), which can be cheaply interrogated via low-cost hybridization arrays commonly used in clinical practice. We present a method to predict the disease relevance of CNVs that combines functional context and clinical phenotype to discover clinically harmful CNVs (and likely causative genes) in patients with a variety of phenotypes. We compare several feature and gene weighing systems for classifying both genes and CNVs. We combined the best performing methodologies and parameters on over 2,500 Agilent CGH 180k Microarray CNVs derived from 140 patients. Our method achieved an F-score of 91.59%, with 87.08% precision and 97.00% recall. Our methods are freely available at https://github.com/compbio-UofT/cnv-prioritization. Our dataset is included with the supplementary information.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".