MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3136596816 · doi:10.1101/2021.03.18.21253763

A scalable EHR-based approach for phenotype discovery and variant interpretation for hereditary cancer genes

2021· preprint· en· W3136596816 on OpenAlexaff
Chenjie Zeng, Lisa Bastarache, Ran Tao, Eric Venner, Scott J. Hebbring, Justin Andujar, Harris T. Bland, David R. Crosslin, Siddharth Pratap, Ayorinde Cooley, Jennifer A. Pacheco, Kurt D. Christensen, Emma Perez, Carrie L. Blout Zawatsky, Leora Witkowski, Hana Zouk, Chunhua Weng, Kathleen A. Leppig, Patrick Sleiman, Håkon Håkonarson, Marc S. Williams, Yuan Luo, Gail P. Jarvik, Robert C. Green, Wendy K. Chung, Ali G. Gharavi, Niall J. Lennon, Heidi L. Rehm, Richard A. Gibbs, Josh F. Peterson, Dan M. Roden, Georgia L. Wiesner, Joshua C. Denny

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Human Genome Research Institute
KeywordsPhenomePhenotypePathogenicityGeneComputational biologyGeneticsBiologyDiseaseBioinformaticsMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Knowledge of the clinical spectrum of rare genetic disorders helps in disease management and variant pathogenicity interpretation. Leveraging electronic health record (EHR)-linked genetic testing data from the eMERGE network, we determined the associations between a set of 23 hereditary cancer genes and 3017 phenotypes in 23544 individuals. This phenome-wide association study replicated 45% (184/406) of known gene-phenotype associations ( P = 5.1×10 −125 ). Meta-analysis with an independent EHR-derived cohort of 3242 patients confirmed 14 novel associations with phenotypes in the neoplastic, genitourinary, digestive, congenital, metabolic, mental and neurologic categories. Phenotype risk scores (PheRS) based on weighted aggregations of EHR phenotypes accurately predicted variant pathogenicity for at least 50% of pathogenic variants for 8/23 genes. We generated a catalog of PheRS for 7800 variants, including 5217 variants of uncertain significance, to provide empirical evidence of potential pathogenicity. This study highlights the potential of EHR data in genomic medicine.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicGenomics and Rare Diseases→French-language works237,207→