MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2942356725 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-959-1-189

Discovering Monogenic Causes of Multi-Diseases by Mining Electronic Medical Records and Genetics Repositories

2019· article· en· W2942356725 on OpenAlexaff
Adnan Kulenović, Azra Lagumdzija-Kulenovic

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseaseMedical geneticsGeneGenomeComputational biologyBioinformaticsGeneticsData scienceBiologyMedicineComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a method called SMDG (Single Multi-Disease Genes) for systematic discovery of monogenic causes of multi-diseases. Multi-disease conditions, quite common in older populations, are difficult to treat due to missing their precise medical guidelines and need for attention of multiple health care providers. Finding monogenic causes of these diseases would enable introducing new therapeutic approaches, focused on the remediation of mutations of single genes. SMDG is based on the hierarchical divisive clustering of electronic medical records (EMR) that include genetic data, and on the analysis of the public gene-to-disease and gene-to-gene repositories. The method was tested on the database of the Harvard Personal Genome Project (PGP), the gene-to-disease repository DisGeNET and the gene-to-gene interactions repository BioGRID. It identified possible new monogenic causes of selected multi-diseases, which were confirmed as valid hypotheses by examining related research papers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0280.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informatics→Same topicGenomics and Rare Diseases→French-language works237,207→