Matching whole genomes to rare genetic disorders: Identification of potential causative variants using phenotype-weighted knowledge in the CAGI SickKids5 clinical genomes challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Precise identification of causative variants from whole-genome sequencing data, including both coding and non-coding variants, is challenging. The CAGI5 SickKids clinical genome challenge provided an opportunity to assess our ability to extract such information. Participants in the challenge were required to match each of 24 whole-genome sequences to the correct phenotypic profile and to identify the disease class of each genome. These are all rare disease cases that have resisted genetic diagnosis in a state-of-the-art pipeline. The patients have a range of eye, neurological, and connective-tissue disorders. We used a gene-centric approach to address this problem, assigning each gene a multi-phenotype-matching score. Mutations in the top scoring genes for each phenotype profile were ranked on a six-point scale of pathogenicity probability, resulting in an approximately equal number of top ranked coding and non-coding candidate variants overall. We were able to assign the correct disease class for 12 cases and the correct genome to a clinical profile for five cases. The challenge assessor found genes in three of these five cases as likely appropriate. In the post-submission phase, after careful screening of the genes in the correct genome we identified additional potential diagnostic variants, a high proportion of which are non-coding.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".