Text‐based phenotypic profiles incorporating biochemical phenotypes of inborn errors of metabolism improve phenomics‐based diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phenomics is the comprehensive study of phenotypes at every level of biology: from metabolites to organisms. With high throughput technologies increasing the scope of biological discoveries, the field of phenomics has been developing rapid and precise methods to collect, catalog, and analyze phenotypes. Such methods have allowed phenotypic data to be widely used in medical applications, from assisting clinical diagnoses to prioritizing genomic diagnoses. To channel the benefits of phenomics into the field of inborn errors of metabolism (IEM), we have recently launched IEMbase, an expert-curated knowledgebase of IEM and their disease-characterizing phenotypes. While our efforts with IEMbase have realized benefits, taking full advantage of phenomics requires a comprehensive curation of IEM phenotypes in core phenomics projects, which is dependent upon contributions from the IEM clinical and research community. Here, we assess the inclusion of IEM biochemical phenotypes in a core phenomics project, the Human Phenotype Ontology. We then demonstrate the utility of biochemical phenotypes using a text-based phenomics method to predict gene-disease relationships, showing that the prediction of IEM genes is significantly better using biochemical rather than clinical profiles. The findings herein provide a motivating goal for the IEM community to expand the computationally accessible descriptions of biochemical phenotypes associated with IEM in phenomics resources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".