Applying the Clinician-reported Genetic testing Utility InDEx (C-GUIDE) to genome sequencing: further evidence of validity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome sequencing (GS) outperforms other rare disease diagnostics, but standardized approaches to assessing its clinical utility are limited. This study assessed the validity of the Clinician-reported Genetic testing Utility InDEx (C-GUIDE), a novel tool for assessing the utility of genetic testing from a clinician's perspective, for GS. C-GUIDE ratings were completed for patients who received GS results. For each patient, total C-GUIDE and single item global scores were calculated. Construct validity was assessed using linear regression to determine the association between C-GUIDE total and global item scores and measure the effects of potential explanatory variables. Ratings were completed for 67 pediatric and 36 adult patients. GS indications were neurological for 70.9% and results were diagnostic for 28.2%. When the C-GUIDE assessed primary (PV), secondary (SV), and pharmacogenomic (PGx) variants, on average, a one unit increase in the global item score was associated with an increase of 7.3 in the C-GUIDE score (p < 0.05). Diagnostic results were associated with an increase in C-GUIDE score of 5.0 compared to non-diagnostic results (p < 0.05) and an increase of one SV was associated with an increase of 2.5 (p < 0.05). For children, decreased age of one year was associated with an increase in C-GUIDE score of 0.3 (p < 0.05). Findings provide evidence that C-GUIDE measures the construct of clinical utility in pediatric and adult rare disease populations and is sensitive to changes in utility related to variant type. Quantifying the clinical utility of GS using C-GUIDE can inform efforts to optimize its use in patient care.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".