Curation and expansion of Human Phenotype Ontology for defined groups of inborn errors of immunity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate, detailed, and standardized phenotypic descriptions are essential to support diagnostic interpretation of genetic variants and to discover new diseases. The Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO), extensively used in rare disease research, provides a rich collection of vocabulary with standardized phenotypic descriptions in a hierarchical structure. However, to date, the use of HPO has not yet been widely implemented in the field of inborn errors of immunity (IEIs), mainly due to a lack of comprehensive IEI-related terms. OBJECTIVES: We sought to systematically review available terms in HPO for the depiction of IEIs, to expand HPO, yielding more comprehensive sets of terms, and to reannotate IEIs with HPO terms to provide accurate, standardized phenotypic descriptions. METHODS: We initiated a collaboration involving expert clinicians, geneticists, researchers working on IEIs, and bioinformaticians. Multiple branches of the HPO tree were restructured and extended on the basis of expert review. Our ontology-guided machine learning coupled with a 2-tier expert review was applied to reannotate defined subgroups of IEIs. RESULTS: We revised and expanded 4 main branches of the HPO tree. Here, we reannotated 73 diseases from 4 International Union of Immunological Societies-defined IEI disease subgroups with HPO terms. We achieved a 4.7-fold increase in the number of phenotypic terms per disease. Given the new HPO annotations, we demonstrated improved ability to computationally match selected IEI cases to their known diagnosis, and improved phenotype-driven disease classification. CONCLUSIONS: Our targeted expansion and reannotation presents enhanced precision of disease annotation, will enable superior HPO-based IEI characterization, and hence benefit both IEI diagnostic and research activities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".