CAGI SickKids challenges: Assessment of phenotype and variant predictions derived from clinical and genomic data of children with undiagnosed diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) holds great potential as a diagnostic test. However, the majority of patients currently undergoing WGS lack a molecular diagnosis, largely due to the vast number of undiscovered disease genes and our inability to assess the pathogenicity of most genomic variants. The CAGI SickKids challenges attempted to address this knowledge gap by assessing state-of-the-art methods for clinical phenotype prediction from genomes. CAGI4 and CAGI5 participants were provided with WGS data and clinical descriptions of 25 and 24 undiagnosed patients from the SickKids Genome Clinic Project, respectively. Predictors were asked to identify primary and secondary causal variants. In addition, for CAGI5, groups had to match each genome to one of three disorder categories (neurologic, ophthalmologic, and connective), and separately to each patient. The performance of matching genomes to categories was no better than random but two groups performed significantly better than chance in matching genomes to patients. Two of the ten variants proposed by two groups in CAGI4 were deemed to be diagnostic, and several proposed pathogenic variants in CAGI5 are good candidates for phenotype expansion. We discuss implications for improving in silico assessment of genomic variants and identifying new disease genes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".