Systematic evaluation of genome sequencing for the assessment of fetal structural anomalies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Current clinical guidelines recommend three genetic tests for the assessment of fetal structural anomalies: karyotype to detect microscopically-visible balanced and unbalanced chromosomal rearrangements, chromosomal microarray (CMA) to detect sub-microscopic copy number variants (CNVs), and exome sequencing (ES) to identify individual nucleotide changes in coding sequence. Advances in genome sequencing (GS) analysis suggest that it is poised to displace the sequential application of all three conventional tests to become a single diagnostic approach for the assessment of fetal structural anomalies. However, systematic benchmarking is required to assure that GS can capture the full mutational spectrum associated with fetal structural anomalies and to accurately quantify the added diagnostic yield of GS. We applied a novel GS analytic framework that included the discovery, filtration, and interpretation of nine classes of genomic variation to 7,195 individuals. We assessed the sensitivity of GS to detect diagnostic variants (pathogenic or likely pathogenic) from three standard-of-care tests using 1,612 autism spectrum disorder quartet families (ASD; n=6,448) with matched GS, ES, and CMA data, and validated these findings in 46 fetuses with a clinically reportable variant originally identified by karyotype, CMA, or ES. We then assessed the added diagnostic yield of GS in 249 trios (n=747) comprising a fetus with a structural anomaly detected by ultrasound and two unaffected parents that were pre-screened with a combination of all three standard-of-care tests. Across both cohorts, our GS analytic framework identified 98.2% of all diagnostic variants detected by standard-of-care tests, including 100% of those originally detected by CMA (n=88) and ES (n=61), as well as 78.6% (n=11/14) of the chromosomal rearrangements identified by karyotype. The diagnostic yield from GS was 7.8% across all 1,612 ASD probands, almost two-fold more than CMA (4.4%) and three-fold more than ES (3.0%). We also demonstrated that the yield of ES can approach that of GS when CNVs are captured with high sensitivity from exome data (7.4% vs. 7.8%, respectively). In 249 pre-screened fetuses with structural anomalies, GS provided an additional diagnostic yield of 0.4% beyond the combination of all three tests (karyotype, CMA, and ES). Applying our benchmarking results to existing data indicates that GS can achieve an overall diagnostic yield of 46.1% in unselected fetuses with fetal structural anomalies, providing an estimated 17.2% increase in diagnostic yield over karyotype, 14.1% over CMA, and 36.1% over ES when sequence variants are assessed, and 4.1% when CNVs are also identified from exome data. In this study we demonstrate that GS is sensitive to the detection of almost all pathogenic variation captured by karyotype, CMA, and ES, provides a superior diagnostic yield than any individual test by a wide margin, and contributes a modest increase in diagnostic yield beyond the combination of all three tests. We also outline several strategies to aid the interpretation of GS variants that are cryptic to conventional technologies, which we anticipate will be increasingly encountered as comprehensive variant identification from GS is performed. Taken together, these data suggest GS warrants consideration as a first-tier diagnostic approach for fetal structural anomalies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".