The unsolved rare genetic disease atlas? An analysis of the unexplained phenotypic descriptions in OMIM®
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For years, the genetics community has estimated the number of individual rare genetic diseases to be approximately 6,000-8,000. A commonly quoted derivation of this estimate is based on the simple addition of the number of phenotypic entries with and without confirmed molecular etiologies in the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM®). Here, we examine the validity of this estimation by mining the phenotypic entries in OMIM that are of likely or suspected Mendelian inheritance without a molecular cause (MIM number prefix "%" or "null"). Of the 3,204 unsolved phenotypic entries in OMIM, only two-thirds (2,034 entries) represented rare diseases. Of these, 8% were considered "well-established" based on their description in commonly used reference textbooks. We hypothesize based on the large proportion of entries that represent single families reported prior to 2011, that a number of the unsolved entries represent pathogenic variants in known genes. The novel gene discovery potential of these entries is therefore likely lower than originally thought. Given that the majority of the ~300 new disease-gene associations curated each year by OMIM were never associated with a "%" or "null" sign, the true scope of the rare disease atlas is likely much larger than previously anticipated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".