Outcome of over 1500 matches through the Matchmaker Exchange for rare disease gene discovery: The 2-year experience of Care4Rare Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Matchmaking has emerged as a useful strategy for building evidence toward causality of novel disease genes in patients with undiagnosed rare diseases. The Matchmaker Exchange (MME) is a collaborative initiative that facilitates international data sharing for matchmaking purposes; however, data on user experience is limited. METHODS: Patients enrolled as part of the Finding of Rare Disease Genes in Canada (FORGE) and Care4Rare Canada research programs had their exome sequencing data reanalyzed by a multidisciplinary research team over a 2-year period. Compelling variants in genes not previously associated with a human phenotype were submitted through the MME node PhenomeCentral, and outcomes were collected. RESULTS: In this study, 194 novel candidate genes were submitted to the MME, resulting in 1514 matches, and 15% of the genes submitted resulted in collaborations. Most submissions resulted in at least 1 match, and most matches were with GeneMatcher (82%), where additional email exchange was required to evaluate the match because of the lack of phenotypic or inheritance information. CONCLUSION: Matchmaking through the MME is an effective way to investigate novel candidate genes; however, it is a labor-intensive process. Engagement from the community to contribute phenotypic, genotypic, and inheritance data will ensure that matchmaking continues to be a useful approach in the future.
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 | 0.024 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".