Trio RNA sequencing in a cohort of medically complex children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome sequencing (GS) is a powerful test for the diagnosis of rare genetic disorders. Although GS can enumerate most non-coding variation, determining which non-coding variants are disease-causing is challenging. RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has emerged as an important tool to help address this issue, but its diagnostic utility remains understudied, and the added value of a trio design is unknown. We performed GS plus RNA-seq from blood using an automated clinical-grade high-throughput platform on 97 individuals from 39 families where the proband was a child with unexplained medical complexity. RNA-seq was an effective adjunct test when paired with GS. It enabled clarification of putative splice variants in three families, but it did not reveal variants not already identified by GS analysis. Trio RNA-seq decreased the number of candidates requiring manual review when filtering for de novo dominant disease-causing variants, allowing for the exclusion of 16% of gene-expression outliers and 27% of allele-specific-expression outliers. However, clear diagnostic benefit from the trio design was not observed. Blood-based RNA-seq can facilitate genome analysis in children with suspected undiagnosed genetic disease. In contrast to DNA sequencing, the clinical advantages of a trio RNA-seq design may be more limited.
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".