Diagnostic implications of pitfalls in causal variant identification based on 4577 molecularly characterized families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite large sequencing and data sharing efforts, previously characterized pathogenic variants only account for a fraction of Mendelian disease patients, which highlights the need for accurate identification and interpretation of novel variants. In a large Mendelian cohort of 4577 molecularly characterized families, numerous scenarios in which variant identification and interpretation can be challenging are encountered. We describe categories of challenges that cover the phenotype (e.g. novel allelic disorders), pedigree structure (e.g. imprinting disorders masquerading as autosomal recessive phenotypes), positional mapping (e.g. double recombination events abrogating candidate autozygous intervals), gene (e.g. novel gene-disease assertion) and variant (e.g. complex compound inheritance). Overall, we estimate a probability of 34.3% for encountering at least one of these challenges. Importantly, our data show that by only addressing non-sequencing-based challenges, around 71% increase in the diagnostic yield can be expected. Indeed, by applying these lessons to a cohort of 314 cases with negative clinical exome or genome reports, we could identify the likely causal variant in 54.5%. Our work highlights the need to have a thorough approach to undiagnosed diseases by considering a wide range of challenges rather than a narrow focus on sequencing technologies. It is hoped that by sharing this experience, the yield of undiagnosed disease programs globally can be improved.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".