Back

An automatic diagnostic system for pediatric genetic disorders developed by linking genotype and phenotype information

Dong, X.; Wu, B.; Wang, H.; Yang, L.; Chen, X.; Ni, Q.; Wang, Y.; Liu, B.; Lu, Y.; Zhou, W.

2021-08-28 pediatrics
10.1101/2021.08.26.21261185 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundQuantitatively describe the phenotype spectrum of pediatric disorders has remarkable power to assist genetic diagnosis. Here, we developed a matrix which provide this quantitative description of genomic-phenotypic association and constructed an automatic system to assist the diagnose of pediatric genetic disorders. Results20,580 patients with genetic diagnostic conclusions from the Childrens Hospital of Fudan University during 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. Based on that, a phenotype spectrum matrix -- cGPS (clinical Genes Preferential Synopsis) -- was designed by Naive Bayes model to quantitatively describe genes contribution to clinical phenotype categories. Further, for patients who have both genomic and phenotype data, we designed a ConsistencyScore based on cGPS. ConsistencyScore aimed to figure out genes that were more likely to be the genetic causal of the patients phenotype and to prioritize the causal gene among all candidates. When using the ConsistencyScore in each sample to predict the causal gene for patients, the AUC could reach 0.975 for ROC (95% CI 0.972-0.976 and 0.575 for precision-recall curve (95% CI 0.541-0.604). Further, the performance of ConsistencyScore was evaluated on another cohort with 2,323 patients, which could rank the causal gene of the patient as the first for 75.00% (95% CI 70.95%-79.07%) of the 296 positively genetic diagnosed patients. The causal gene of 97.64% (95% CI 95.95%-99.32%) patients could be ranked within top 10 by ConsistencyScore, which is much higher than existing algorithms (p <0.001). ConclusionscGPS and ConsistencyScore offer useful tools to prioritize disease-causing genes for pediatric disorders and show great potential in clinical applications.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.