MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3110477998 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.3686

Enhancing rare variant interpretation in inherited arrhythmias through quantitative analysis of 5182 cases from long QT syndrome and Brugada syndrome consortia cohorts and gnomAD population controls

2020· article· en· W3110477998 on OpenAlexaff
Roddy Walsh, Najim Lahrouchi, Charlotte Glinge, Christian Krijger, Nicola Whiffin, Francesco Mazzarotto, James S. Ware, Rafik Tadros, Connie R. Bezzina

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrugada syndromeMedicineLong QT syndromeMissense mutationGenetic testingPopulationMendelian inheritanceGeneticsGenetic heterogeneityDiseaseGenome-wide association studyInternal medicineQT intervalCardiologyGenotypeMutationGenePhenotypeBiologySingle-nucleotide polymorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Introduction Guidelines for variant interpretation in Mendelian disease set stringent criteria to report a variant as (likely) pathogenic, prioritising control of false positive rate over test sensitivity and diagnostic yield, and require customisation for the specific genetic characteristics of gene-disease dyads. Inherited arrhythmias like long QT syndrome (LQTS) and Brugada syndrome (BrS) are genetically heterogeneous, with missense variants constituting the preponderance of disease-causing variants. Evidence from family segregation or functional assays to confirm pathogenicity are often unavailable or impractical in clinical genetic testing, leading to high rates of variants of uncertain significance and false negative test results. Methods We compared rare variant frequencies from 1847 LQTS (KCNQ1, KCNH2, SCN5A) and 3335 BrS (SCN5A) cases from the International LQTS/BrS Genetics Consortia to population-specific gnomAD data. We propose disease-specific criteria for ACMG/AMP evidence classes – rarity (PM2/BS1 rules) and enrichment of individual (PS4) and domain-specific (PM1) variants in cases over controls. Results Rare SCN5A variant prevalence differed between BrS cases with spontaneous (28.7%) versus induced (15.8%) type 1 Brugada ECG (p=1.3x10–13) and between European (20.8%) and Japanese (8.9%) patients (p=8.8x10–18). Transmembrane regions and specific N-terminus (KCNH2) and C-terminus (KCNQ1/KCNH2) domains were characterised by high enrichment of case variants and >95% probability of pathogenicity. Applying the customised rules, 17.5% of European BrS cases and 73.7% of European LQTS cases had variants classified as (likely) pathogenic, compared to estimated diagnostic yields (case excess over gnomAD) of 19.3%/82.6%. Conclusions Large case/control datasets enable quantitative implementation of ACMG/AMP guidelines and increased sensitivity for inherited arrhythmia genetic testing. Classification of Brugada/LQTS variants Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Dutch Heart Foundation, Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias→French-language works237,207→