Genotype-Phenotype Taxonomy of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is an important cause of sudden cardiac death associated with heterogeneous phenotypes, but there is no systematic framework for classifying morphology or assessing associated risks. Here, we quantitatively survey genotype-phenotype associations in HCM to derive a data-driven taxonomy of disease expression. METHODS: We enrolled 436 patients with HCM (median age, 60 years; 28.8% women) with clinical, genetic, and imaging data. An independent cohort of 60 patients with HCM from Singapore (median age, 59 years; 11% women) and a reference population from the UK Biobank (n=16 691; mean age, 55 years; 52.5% women) were also recruited. We used machine learning to analyze the 3-dimensional structure of the left ventricle from cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and build a tree-based classification of HCM phenotypes. Genotype and mortality risk distributions were projected on the tree. RESULTS: Carriers of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants for HCM had lower left ventricular mass, but greater basal septal hypertrophy, with reduced life span (mean follow-up, 9.9 years) compared with genotype negative individuals (hazard ratio, 2.66 [95% CI, 1.42–4.96]; P <0.002). Four main phenotypic branches were identified using unsupervised learning of 3-dimensional shape: (1) nonsarcomeric hypertrophy with coexisting hypertension; (2) diffuse and basal asymmetrical hypertrophy associated with outflow tract obstruction; (3) isolated basal hypertrophy; and (4) milder nonobstructive hypertrophy enriched for familial sarcomeric HCM (odds ratio for pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.93–2.28]; P =0.0001). Polygenic risk for HCM was also associated with different patterns and degrees of disease expression. The model was generalizable to an independent cohort (trustworthiness, M 1 : 0.86–0.88). CONCLUSIONS: We report a data-driven taxonomy of HCM for identifying groups of patients with similar morphology while preserving a continuum of disease severity, genetic risk, and outcomes. This approach will be of value in understanding the causes and consequences of disease diversity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".