CAGI4 SickKids clinical genomes challenge: A pipeline for identifying pathogenic variants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared with earlier more restricted sequencing technologies, identification of rare disease variants using whole-genome sequence has the possibility of finding all causative variants, but issues of data quality and an overwhelming level of background variants complicate the analysis. The CAGI4 SickKids clinical genome challenge provided an opportunity to assess the landscape of variants found in a difficult set of 25 unsolved rare disease cases. To address the challenge, we developed a three-stage pipeline, first carefully analyzing data quality, then classifying high-quality gene-specific variants into seven categories, and finally examining each candidate variant for compatibility with the often complex phenotypes of these patients for final prioritization. Variants consistent with the phenotypes were found in 24 out of the 25 cases, and in a number of these, there are prioritized variants in multiple genes. Data quality analysis suggests that some of the selected variants are likely incorrect calls, complicating interpretation. The data providers followed up on three suggested variants with Sanger sequencing, and in one case, a prioritized variant was confirmed as likely causative by the referring physician, providing a diagnosis in a previously intractable case.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".