metPropagate: network-guided propagation of metabolomic information for prioritization of metabolic disease genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many inborn errors of metabolism (IEMs) are amenable to treatment, therefore early diagnosis is imperative. Whole-exome sequencing (WES) variant prioritization coupled with phenotype-guided clinical and bioinformatics expertise is typically used to identify disease-causing variants; however, it can be challenging to identify the causal candidate gene when a large number of rare and potentially pathogenic variants are detected. Here, we present a network-based approach, metPropagate, that uses untargeted metabolomics (UM) data from a single patient and a group of controls to prioritize candidate genes in patients with suspected IEMs. We validate metPropagate on 107 patients with IEMs diagnosed in Miller et al. (2015) and 11 patients with both CNS and metabolic abnormalities. The metPropagate method ranks candidate genes by label propagation, a graph-smoothing algorithm that considers each gene’s metabolic perturbation in addition to the network of interactions between neighbors. metPropagate was able to prioritize at least one causative gene in the top 20 th percentile of candidate genes for 92% of patients with known IEMs. Applied to patients with suspected neurometabolic disease, metPropagate placed at least one causative gene in the top 20 th percentile in 9/11 patients, and ranked the causative gene more highly than Exomiser’s phenotype-based ranking in 6/11 patients. Interestingly, ranking by a weighted combination of metPropagate and Exomiser scores resulted in improved prioritization. The results of this study indicate that network-based analysis of UM data can provide an additional mode of evidence to prioritize causal genes in patients with suspected IEMs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".