MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401213505 · doi:10.1101/2024.07.29.24311195

ClinGen Hereditary Cardiovascular Disease Gene Curation Expert Panel: Reappraisal of Genes associated with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

2024· preprint· en· W4401213505 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Hespe, Amber Waddell, Babken Asatryan, Emma Owens, Courtney Thaxton, Mhy-Lanie Adduru, Kailyn Anderson, Emily Brown, Lily Hoffman‐Andrews, Elizabeth Jordan, Katherine Josephs, Megan Mayers, Stacey Peters, Fergus Stafford, Richard D. Bagnall, Lucas Bronicki, Bert Callewaert, C. Anwar A. Chahal, Cynthia A. James, Olga Jarinova, Andrew P. Landstrom, Elizabeth M. McNally, Brittney Murray, Laura Muiño Mosquera, Victoria N. Parikh, Chloe M. Reuter, Roddy Walsh, Bess Wayburn, James S. Ware, Jodie Ingles

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Institutes of HealthVlaamse regeringFondation LeducqGottfried und Julia Bangerter-Rhyner-StiftungImperial College LondonBritish Heart FoundationNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMedical Research CouncilAmerican Heart AssociationCytokineticsBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsHypertrophic cardiomyopathyGeneGeneticsGenetic heterogeneityBiologyDiseaseInheritance (genetic algorithm)BioinformaticsMedicinePathologyPhenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is an inherited cardiac condition affecting ~1 in 500 and exhibits marked genetic heterogeneity. Previously published in 2019, 57 HCM-associated genes were curated providing the first systematic evaluation of gene-disease validity. Here we report work by the ClinGen Hereditary Cardiovascular Disorders Gene Curation Expert Panel (HCVD-GCEP) to reappraise the clinical validity of previously curated and new putative HCM genes. Methods: The ClinGen systematic gene curation framework was used to re-classify the gene-disease relationships for HCM and related syndromic entities involving left ventricular hypertrophy. Genes previously curated were included if their classification was not definitive, and if the time since curation was >2-3 years. New genes with literature assertions for HCM were included for initial evaluation. Existing genes were curated for new inheritance patterns where evidence existed. Curations were presented on twice monthly calls, with the HCVD-GCEP composed of 29 individuals from 21 institutions across 6 countries. Results: Thirty-one genes were re-curated and an additional 5 new potential HCM-associated genes were curated. Among the re-curated genes, 17 (55%) genes changed classification: 1 limited and 4 disputed (from no known disease relationship), 9 disputed (from limited), and 3 definitive (from moderate). Among these, 3 (10%) genes had a clinically relevant upgrade, including TNNC1, a 9th sarcomere gene with definitive HCM association. With new evidence, two genes were curated for multiple inheritance patterns (TRIM63, disputed for autosomal dominant but moderate for autosomal recessive; ALPK3, strong for autosomal dominant and definitive for recessive). CSRP3 was curated for a semi-dominant mode of inheritance (definitive). Nine (29%) genes were downgraded to disputed, further discouraging clinical reporting of variants in these genes. Five genes recently reported to cause HCM were curated: RPS6KB1 and RBM20 (limited), KLHL24 and MT-TI (moderate), and FHOD3 (definitive). Conclusions: We report 29 genes with definitive, strong or moderate evidence of causation for HCM or isolated LVH, including sarcomere, sarcomere-associated and syndromic conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207