Dutch genome diagnostic laboratories accelerated and improved variant interpretation and increased accuracy by sharing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Each year diagnostic laboratories in the Netherlands profile thousands of individuals for heritable disease using next-generation sequencing (NGS). This requires pathogenicity classification of millions of DNA variants on the standard 5-tier scale. To reduce time spent on data interpretation and increase data quality and reliability, the nine Dutch labs decided to publicly share their classifications. Variant classifications of nearly 100,000 unique variants were catalogued and compared in a centralized MOLGENIS database. Variants classified by more than one center were labeled as "consensus" when classifications agreed, and shared internationally with LOVD and ClinVar. When classifications opposed (LB/B vs. LP/P), they were labeled "conflicting", while other nonconsensus observations were labeled "no consensus". We assessed our classifications using the InterVar software to compare to ACMG 2015 guidelines, showing 99.7% overall consistency with only 0.3% discrepancies. Differences in classifications between Dutch labs or between Dutch labs and ACMG were mainly present in genes with low penetrance or for late onset disorders and highlight limitations of the current 5-tier classification system. The data sharing boosted the quality of DNA diagnostics in Dutch labs, an initiative we hope will be followed internationally. Recently, a positive match with a case from outside our consortium resulted in a more definite disease diagnosis.
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 | 0.085 | 0.153 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".