Development and user evaluation of a rare disease gene prioritization workflow based on cognitive ergonomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The clinical diagnosis of genetic disorders is undergoing transformation, driven by whole exome sequencing and whole genome sequencing (WES/WGS). However, such nucleotide-level resolution technologies create an interpretive challenge. Prior literature suggests that clinicians may employ characteristic cognitive processes during WES/WGS investigations to identify disruptions in genes causal for the observed disease. Based on cognitive ergonomics, we designed and evaluated a gene prioritization workflow that supported these cognitive processes. Materials and Methods: We designed a novel workflow in which clinicians recalled known genetic diseases with similarity to patient phenotypes to inform WES/WGS data interpretation. This prototype-based workflow was evaluated against the common computational approach based on physician-specified sets of individual patient phenotypes. The evaluation was conducted as a web-based user study, in which 18 clinicians analyzed 2 simulated patient scenarios using a randomly assigned workflow. Data analysis compared the 2 workflows with respect to accuracy and efficiency in diagnostic interpretation, efficacy in collecting detailed phenotypic information, and user satisfaction. Results: Participants interpreted genetic diagnoses faster using prototype-based workflows. The 2 workflows did not differ in other evaluated aspects. Discussion: The user study findings indicate that prototype-based approaches, which are designed to model experts' cognitive processes, can expedite gene prioritization and provide utility in synergy with common phenotype-driven variant/gene prioritization approaches. However, further research of the extent of this effect across diverse genetic diseases is required. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate potential for prototype-based phenotype description to accelerate computer-assisted variant/gene prioritization through complementation of skills and knowledge of clinical experts via human-computer interaction.
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 | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".