Back

AMELIE 3: Fully Automated Mendelian Patient Reanalysis at Under 1 Alert per Patient per Year

Birgmeier, J.; Steinberg, E.; Bodle, E. E.; Deisseroth, C. A.; Jagadeesh, K. A.; Kohler, J. N.; Bonner, D.; Marwaha, S.; Martinez-Agosto, J. A.; Nelson, S.; Palmer, C. G.; Cogan, J. D.; Hamid, R.; Stoler, J. M.; Krier, J. B.; Rosenfeld, J. A.; Moretti, P.; Adams, D. R.; Shashi, V.; Worthey, E. A.; Eng, C. M.; Ashley, E. A.; Wheeler, M. T.; Undiagnosed Diseases Network, ; Stenson, P. D.; Cooper, D. N.; Bernstein, J. A.; Bejerano, G.

2021-01-04 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2020.12.29.20248974 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundMany thousands of patients with a suspected Mendelian disease have their exomes/genomes sequenced every year, but only about 30% receive a definitive diagnosis. Since a novel Mendelian gene-disease association is published on average every business day, thousands of undiagnosed patient cases could receive a diagnosis each year if their genomes were regularly compared to the latest literature. With millions of genomes expected to be sequenced for rare disease analysis by 2025, and considering the current publication rate of 1.1 million new articles per annum in PubMed, manually reanalyzing the growing cases of undiagnosed patients is not sustainable. MethodsWe describe a fully automated reanalysis framework for patients with suspected, but undiagnosed, Mendelian disorders. The presented framework was tested by automatically parsing all [~]100,000 newly published peer reviewed papers every month and matching them on genotype and phenotype with all stored undiagnosed patients. If a new article contains a possible diagnosis for an undiagnosed patient, the system provides notification. We test the accuracy of the automatic reanalysis system on 110 patients, including 61 with available trio data. ResultsEven when trained only on older data, our system identifies 80% of reanalysis diagnoses, while sending only 0.5-1 alerts per patient per year, a 100-1,000-fold efficiency gain over manual literature surveillance of equivalent yield. ConclusionWe show that automatic reanalysis of patients with suspected Mendelian disease is feasible and has the potential to greatly streamline diagnosis. Our system is not intended to replace clinical judgment. Rather, clinical diagnostic services could greatly benefit from a modest re-allocation of time from manual literature exploration to review of automated reanalysis alerts. Our system additionally supports a new paradigm for medical IT systems: proactive, continuously learning and consequently able to autonomously identify valuable insights as they emerge in digital health records. We have launched automated patient reanalysis, trained on the latest data, with user accounts and daily literature updates at https://AMELIE.stanford.edu.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
43.6%
2
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
13.1%
50% of probability mass above
3
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 3%
7.1%
4
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.8%
5
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.8%
6
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.8%
7
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
8
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.4%
9
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
10
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.3%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 68%
1.2%
12
BMC Medical Genomics
36 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.0%
13
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 25%
0.9%
14
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
15
Med
38 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
16
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
17
Bioinformatics Advances
184 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
18
Human Mutation
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
19
Nucleic Acids Research
1128 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.8%
20
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
21
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
22
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
23
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
34 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
25
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 72%
0.5%
26
BioData Mining
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
27
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 48%
0.5%
28
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%