New Developments and Possibilities in Reanalysis and Reinterpretation of Whole Exome Sequencing Datasets for Unsolved Rare Diseases Using Machine Learning Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rare diseases impact the lives of 300 million people in the world. Rapid advances in bioinformatics and genomic technologies have enabled the discovery of causes of 20-30% of rare diseases. However, most rare diseases have remained as unsolved enigmas to date. Newer tools and availability of high throughput sequencing data have enabled the reanalysis of previously undiagnosed patients. In this review, we have systematically compiled the latest developments in the discovery of the genetic causes of rare diseases using machine learning methods. Importantly, we have detailed methods available to reanalyze existing whole exome sequencing data of unsolved rare diseases. We have identified different reanalysis methodologies to solve problems associated with sequence alterations/mutations, variation re-annotation, protein stability, splice isoform malfunctions and oligogenic analysis. In addition, we give an overview of new developments in the field of rare disease research using whole genome sequencing data and other omics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".