Mobile element insertion detection in 89,874 clinical exomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Exome sequencing (ES) is increasingly used for the diagnosis of rare genetic disease. However, some pathogenic sequence variants within the exome go undetected due to the technical difficulty of identifying them. Mobile element insertions (MEIs) are a known cause of genetic disease in humans but have been historically difficult to detect via ES and similar targeted sequencing methods. METHODS: We developed and applied a novel MEI detection method prospectively to samples received for clinical ES beginning in November 2017. Positive MEI findings were confirmed by an orthogonal method and reported back to the ordering provider. In this study, we examined 89,874 samples from 38,871 cases. RESULTS: Diagnostic MEIs were present in 0.03% (95% binomial test confidence interval: 0.02-0.06%) of all cases and account for 0.15% (95% binomial test confidence interval: 0.08-0.25%) of cases with a molecular diagnosis. One diagnostic MEI was a novel founder event. Most patients with pathogenic MEIs had prior genetic testing, three of whom had previous negative DNA sequencing analysis of the diagnostic gene. CONCLUSION: MEI detection from ES is a valuable diagnostic tool, reveals molecular findings that may be undetected by other sequencing assays, and increases diagnostic yield by 0.15%.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".