Harmonizing the Collection of Clinical Data on Genetic Testing Requisition Forms to Enhance Variant Interpretation in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diagnostic laboratories gather phenotypic data through requisition forms, but there is no consensus as to which data are essential for variant interpretation. The ClinGen Cardiomyopathy Variant Curation Expert Panel defined a phenotypic data set for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) variant interpretation, with the goal of standardizing requisition forms. Phenotypic data elements listed on requisition forms from nine leading cardiomyopathy testing laboratories were compiled to assess divergence in data collection. A pilot of 50 HCM cases was implemented to determine the feasibility of harmonizing data collection. Laboratory directors were surveyed to gauge potential for adoption of a minimal data set. Wide divergence was observed in the phenotypic data fields in requisition forms. The 50-case pilot showed that although demographics and assertion of a clinical diagnosis of HCM had 86% to 98% completion, specific phenotypic features, such as degree of left ventricular hypertrophy, ejection fraction, and suspected syndromic disease, were completed only 24% to 44% of the time. Nine data elements were deemed essential for variant classification by the expert panel. Participating laboratories unanimously expressed a willingness to adopt these data elements in their requisition forms. This study demonstrates the value of comparing and sharing best practices through an expert group, such as the ClinGen Program, to enhance variant interpretation, providing a foundation for leveraging cumulative case-level data in public databases and ultimately improving patient care.
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 | 0.232 | 0.308 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".