A validated heart-specific model for splice-disrupting variants in childhood heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common congenital anomaly. Almost 90% of isolated cases have an unexplained genetic etiology after clinical testing. Non-canonical splice variants that disrupt mRNA splicing through the loss or creation of exon boundaries are not routinely captured and/or evaluated by standard clinical genetic tests. Recent computational algorithms such as SpliceAI have shown an ability to predict such variants, but are not specific to cardiac-expressed genes and transcriptional isoforms. METHODS: We used genome sequencing (GS) (n = 1101 CHD probands) and myocardial RNA-Sequencing (RNA-Seq) (n = 154 CHD and n = 43 cardiomyopathy probands) to identify and validate splice disrupting variants, and to develop a heart-specific model for canonical and non-canonical splice variants that can be applied to patients with CHD and cardiomyopathy. Two thousand five hundred seventy GS samples from the Medical Genome Reference Bank were analyzed as healthy controls. RESULTS: Of 8583 rare DNA splice-disrupting variants initially identified using SpliceAI, 100 were associated with altered splice junctions in the corresponding patient myocardium affecting 95 genes. Using strength of myocardial gene expression and genome-wide DNA variant features that were confirmed to affect splicing in myocardial RNA, we trained a machine learning model for predicting cardiac-specific splice-disrupting variants (AUC 0.86 on internal validation). In a validation set of 48 CHD probands, the cardiac-specific model outperformed a SpliceAI model alone (AUC 0.94 vs 0.67 respectively). Application of this model to an additional 947 CHD probands with only GS data identified 1% patients with canonical and 11% patients with non-canonical splice-disrupting variants in CHD genes. Forty-nine percent of predicted splice-disrupting variants were intronic and > 10 bp from existing splice junctions. The burden of high-confidence splice-disrupting variants in CHD genes was 1.28-fold higher in CHD cases compared with healthy controls. CONCLUSIONS: A new cardiac-specific in silico model was developed using complementary GS and RNA-Seq data that improved genetic yield by identifying a significant burden of non-canonical splice variants associated with CHD that would not be detectable through panel or exome sequencing.
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 | 0.001 | 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".