Parent-reported phenotype data on chromosome 6 aberrations collected via an online questionnaire: data consistency and data availability
Engwerda, A.; Frentz, B.; Rraku, E.; Simoes de Souza, N. F.; Swertz, M. A.; Plantinga, M.; Kerstjens-Frederikse, W. S.; Ranchor, A. V.; Ravenswaaij-Arts, C. M. A.
Show abstract
BackgroundEven with the introduction of new genetic techniques that enable accurate genomic characterization, knowledge about the phenotypic spectrum of rare chromosomal disorders is still limited, both in literature and existing databases. Yet this clinical information is of utmost importance for health professionals and the parents of children with rare diseases. Since existing databases are often hampered by the limited time and willingness of health professionals to input new data, we collected phenotype data directly from parents of children with a chromosome 6 disorder. These parents were reached via social media, and the information was collected via the online Chromosome 6 Questionnaire, which includes 115 main questions on congenital abnormalities, medical problems, behaviour, growth and development. Here, we assess data consistency by comparing parent-reported phenotypes to phenotypes based on copies of medical files for the same individual and data availability by comparing the data available on specific characteristics reported by parents to data available in existing literature. ResultsThe reported answers to the main questions on phenotype characteristics were 85-95% consistent, and the consistency of answers to subsequent more detailed questions was 77-96%. For all but two main questions, significantly more data was collected from parents via the Chromosome 6 Questionnaire than was currently available in literature. For the topics developmental delay and brain abnormalities, no significant difference in the amount of available data was found. The only feature for which significantly more data was available in literature was a sub-question on the type of brain abnormality present. ConclusionsThis is the first study to compare phenotype data collected directly from parents to data extracted from medical files on the same individuals. We found that the data was highly consistent, and phenotype data collected via the online Chromosome 6 Questionnaire resulted in more available information on most clinical characteristics when compared to phenotypes reported in literature reports thus far. We encourage active patient participation in rare disease research and have shown that parent-reported phenotypes are very reliable and contribute to our knowledge of the phenotypic spectrum of rare chromosomal disorders.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The LMSz method - an automatable scalable approach to constructing gene-specific growth charts in rare disorders. 94%
- BCL11A intellectual developmental disorder: defining the clinical spectrum and genotype-phenotype correlations 92%
- Heterozygous and homozygous variants in STX1A cause a neurodevelopmental disorder with or without epilepsy 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical description, molecular delineation and genotype-phenotype correlation in 340 patients with KBG syndrome: Addition of 67 new patients 94%
- How do clinician and parent reported data differ? An analysis of similarity and difference in the datasets from a cross-syndrome genetics cohort study(GenROC) 93%
- Cerebral Visual Impairment: genetic diagnoses and phenotypic associations 91%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Comprehensive phenotyping of 3q29 deletion syndrome: recommendations for clinical care 94%
- Systematic assessment of outcomes following a genetic diagnosis identified through a large-scale research study into developmental disorders 94%
- Towards robust clinical genome interpretation: developing a consistent terminology to characterize disease-gene relationships - allelic requirement, inheritance modes and disease mechanisms 91%
"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.