Exome copy number variant detection, analysis and classification in a large cohort of families with undiagnosed rare genetic disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Copy number variants (CNVs) are significant contributors to the pathogenicity of rare genetic diseases and with new innovative methods can now reliably be identified from exome sequencing. Challenges still remain in accurate classification of CNV pathogenicity. CNV calling using GATK-gCNV was performed on exomes from a cohort of 6,633 families (15,759 individuals) with heterogeneous phenotypes and variable prior genetic testing collected at the Broad Institute Center for Mendelian Genomics of the GREGoR consortium. Each family’s CNV data was analyzed using the seqr platform and candidate CNVs classified using the 2020 ACMG/ClinGen CNV interpretation standards. We developed additional evidence criteria to address situations not covered by the current standards. The addition of CNV calling to exome analysis identified causal CNVs for 173 families (2.6%). The estimated sizes of CNVs ranged from 293 bp to 80 Mb with estimates that 44% would not have been detected by standard chromosomal microarrays. The causal CNVs consisted of 141 deletions, 15 duplications, 4 suspected complex structural variants (SVs), 3 insertions and 10 complex SVs, the latter two groups being identified by orthogonal validation methods. We interpreted 153 CNVs as likely pathogenic/pathogenic and 20 CNVs as high interest variants of uncertain significance. Calling CNVs from existing exome data increases the diagnostic yield for individuals undiagnosed after standard testing approaches, providing a higher resolution alternative to arrays at a fraction of the cost of genome sequencing. Our improvements to the classification approach advances the systematic framework to assess the pathogenicity of CNVs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".