Clinical Genomics for the Diagnosis of Monogenic Forms of Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is important to identify patients with monogenic IBD as management may differ from classical IBD. In this position statement we formulate recommendations for the use of genomics in evaluating potential monogenic causes of IBD across age groups. METHODS: The consensus included paediatric IBD specialists from the Paediatric IBD Porto group of the European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) and specialists from several monogenic IBD research consortia. We defined key topics and performed a systematic literature review to cover indications, technologies (targeted panel, exome and genome sequencing), gene panel setup, cost-effectiveness of genetic screening, and requirements for the clinical care setting. We developed recommendations that were voted upon by all authors and Porto group members (32 voting specialists). RESULTS: We recommend next-generation DNA-sequencing technologies to diagnose monogenic causes of IBD in routine clinical practice embedded in a setting of multidisciplinary patient care. Routine genetic screening is not recommended for all IBD patients. Genetic testing should be considered depending on age of IBD-onset (infantile IBD, very early-onset IBD, paediatric or young adult IBD), and further criteria, such as family history, relevant comorbidities, and extraintestinal manifestations. Genetic testing is also recommended in advance of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. We developed a diagnostic algorithm that includes a gene panel of 75 monogenic IBD genes. Considerations are provided also for low resource countries. CONCLUSIONS: Genomic technologies should be considered an integral part of patient care to investigate patients at risk for monogenic forms of IBD.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it