PhenomeCentral: 7 years of rare disease matchmaking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major challenge in validating genetic causes for patients with rare diseases (RDs) is the difficulty in identifying other RD patients with overlapping phenotypes and variants in the same candidate gene. This process, known as matchmaking, requires robust data sharing solutions in order to be effective. In 2014 we launched PhenomeCentral, a RD data repository capable of collecting computer-readable genotypic and phenotypic data for the purposes of RD matchmaking. Over the past 7 years PhenomeCentral’s features have been expanded and its dataset has consistently grown. There are currently 1,615 users registered on PhenomeCentral, which have contributed over 12,000 patient cases. Most of these cases contain detailed phenotypic terms, with a significant portion also providing genomic sequence data or other forms of clinical information. Matchmaking within PhenomeCentral, and with connections to other data repositories in the Matchmaker Exchange, have collectively resulted in over 60,000 matches, which have facilitated multiple gene discoveries. The collection of deep phenotypic and genotypic data has also positioned PhenomeCentral well to support next generation of matchmaking initiatives that utilize genome sequencing data, ensuring that PhenomeCentral will remain a useful tool in solving undiagnosed RD cases in the years to come.
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 | 0.067 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.015 |
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".