MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408502186 · doi:10.1016/j.gimo.2025.103055

P686: Opportunistic screening for broad range of clinically relevant secondary findings: Outcomes of exome analysis in the Incidental Genomics RCT

2025· article· en· W4408502186 on OpenAlexaff
Chloe Mighton, Emma Reble, Jordan Sam, Rita Kodida, Salma Shickh, Marc Clausen, Daena Hirjikaka, Sonya Grewal, Seema Panchal, Carolyn Piccinin, Melyssa Aronson, Susan Randall Armel, Larissa Peck, Tracy Graham, Yael Silberman, Thomas Ward, José‐Mario Capo‐Chichi, Elena Greenfeld, Abdul Noor, Iris Cohn, Chantal F. Morel, Christine Elser, Andrea Eisen, Emily Glogowski, Kasmintan A. Schrader, Raymond H. Kim, Kelvin Chan, Kevin E. Thorpe, Jordan Lerner‐Ellis, Yvonne Bombard

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics in Medicine Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenJuravinski Cancer CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialExome sequencingExomeGenomicsMedicineComputational biologyBiologyGenomeGeneticsInternal medicinePhenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Practice is shifting towards use of exome and genome sequencing, offering the opportunity to expand analyses beyond variants related to the primary diagnostic indication to identify secondary findings (SFs). While medically actionable SFs are prioritized by guidelines, a much broader spectrum of results could be analyzed, aligned with patients' preferences. We characterized the outcomes of analyzing a broad range of clinically relevant SFs from exome sequencing in the Incidental Genomics RCT (NCT03597165), and the laboratory resources required for sequence analysis.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetics in Medicine OpenSame topicGenomics and Rare DiseasesFrench-language works237,207