Artificial intelligence-driven genotype–epigenotype–phenotype approaches to resolve challenges in syndrome diagnostics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Decisions to split two or more phenotypic manifestations related to genetic variations within the same gene can be challenging, especially during the early stages of syndrome discovery. Genotype-based diagnostics with artificial intelligence (AI)-driven approaches using next-generation phenotyping (NGP) and DNA methylation (DNAm) can be utilized to expedite syndrome delineation within a single gene. METHODS: We utilized an expanded cohort of 56 patients (22 previously unpublished individuals) with truncating variants in the MN1 gene and attempted different methods to assess plausible strategies to objectively delineate phenotypic differences between the C-Terminal Truncation (CTT) and N-Terminal Truncation (NTT) groups. This involved transcriptomics analysis on available patient fibroblast samples and AI-assisted approaches, including a new statistical method of GestaltMatcher on facial photos and blood DNAm analysis using a support vector machine (SVM) model. FINDINGS: RNA-seq analysis was unable to show a significant difference in transcript expression despite our previous hypothesis that NTT variants would induce nonsense mediated decay. DNAm analysis on nine blood DNA samples revealed an episignature for the CTT group. In parallel, the new statistical method of GestaltMatcher objectively distinguished the CTT and NTT groups with a low requirement for cohort number. Validation of this approach was performed on syndromes with known DNAm signatures of SRCAP, SMARCA2 and ADNP to demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach. INTERPRETATION: We demonstrate the potential of using AI-based technologies to leverage genotype, phenotype and epigenetics data in facilitating splitting decisions in diagnosis of syndromes with minimal sample requirement. FUNDING: The specific funding of this article is provided in the acknowledgements section.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".