MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952564037 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2019.00434

Diagnostic Yield and Treatment Impact of Targeted Exome Sequencing in Early-Onset Epilepsy

2019· article· en· W2952564037 on OpenAlexafffund
Michelle Demos, Ilaria Guella, C DeGuzman, Marna B. McKenzie, Sarah E. Buerki, Daniel M. Evans, Eric Toyota, Cyrus Boelman, Linda Huh, Anita Datta, Aspasia Michoulas, Kathryn Selby, Bruce Björnson, Gabriella Horváth, Elena Lopez‐Rangel, Clara van Karnebeek, Ramona Salvarinova, Erin Slade, Patrice Eydoux, Shelin Adam, Margot I. Van Allen, Tanya N. Nelson, Corneliu Bolbocean, Mary Connolly, Matthew J. Farrer

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Children's Hospital
FundersAlva FoundationRare Disease FoundationBC Children's HospitalChildren's Hospital Foundation
KeywordsEpilepsyExome sequencingMedicineYield (engineering)ExomeClinical neurologyNeuroscienceBiologyGeneticsPsychiatryMutationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Targeted whole-exome sequencing (WES) is a powerful diagnostic tool for a broad spectrum of heterogeneous neurological disorders. Here, we aim to examine the impact on diagnosis, treatment and cost with early use of targeted WES in early-onset epilepsy. WES was performed on 180 patients with early-onset epilepsy (≤5 years) of unknown cause. Patients were classified as Retrospective (epilepsy diagnosis >6 months) or Prospective (epilepsy diagnosis <6 months). WES was performed on an Ion Proton™ and variant reporting was restricted to the sequences of 620 known epilepsy genes. Diagnostic yield and time to diagnosis were calculated. An analysis of cost and impact on treatment was also performed. A molecular diagnoses (pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants) was achieved in 59/180 patients (33%). Clinical management changed following WES findings in 23 of 59 diagnosed patients (39%) or 13% of all patients. A possible diagnosis was identified in 21 additional patients (12%) for whom supporting evidence is pending. Time from epilepsy onset to a genetic diagnosis was faster when WES was performed early in the diagnostic process (mean: 145 days Prospective vs. 2,882 days Retrospective). Costs of prior negative tests averaged $8,344 per patient in the Retrospective group, suggesting savings of $5,110 per patient using WES. These results highlight the diagnostic yield, clinical utility and potential cost-effectiveness of using targeted WES early in the diagnostic workup of patients with unexplained early-onset epilepsy. The costs and clinical benefits are likely to continue to improve. Advances in precision medicine and further studies regarding impact on long-term clinical outcome will be important.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations100
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicGenomics and Rare DiseasesFrench-language works237,207