Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Model Clinical Variant Reporting for Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) Oncology Assays
Doig, K. D.; Perera, R.; Kankanige, Y.; Fellowes, A.; Li, J.; Lupat, R.; Thompson, E.; Blombery, P.; Fox, S.
Show abstract
BackgroundTargeted next generation sequencing (NGS) of somatic DNA is now routinely used for diagnostic and predictive reporting in the oncology clinic. The expert genomic analysis required for NGS assays remains a bottleneck to scaling the volume of patients being assessed. This study harnesses data from targeted clinical sequencing to build machine learning models that predict whether patient variants should be reported. MethodsThree somatic assays were used to build machine learning prediction models (Stochastic Gradient Descent, Random Forest, XGBoost and Neural Networks). Using manual expert curation to select reportable variants as ground truth, we built models to classify clinically reportable variants. Assays were performed between 2020 and 2023 yielding 1,350,018 variants and used to report on 10,116 patients. All variants, together with 211 annotations and sequencing features, were used by the models to predict the likelihood of variants being reported. ResultsThe tree-based ensemble models performed consistently well achieving between 0.891 and 0.995 on the precision recall/area under the curve (PRC AUC) metric when predicting whether a variant should be reported. To assist model explainability, individual model predictions were presented to users within a tertiary analysis platform as a waterfall plot showing individual feature contributions and their values for the variant. Over 30% of the model performance was due to features sourced from statistics derived in-house from the sequencing assay precluding easy generalization of the models to other assays or other laboratories. ConclusionsLongitudinally acquired NGS assay data provide a strong basis for machine learning models for decision support to select variants for clinical oncology reports. The models provide a framework for consistent reporting practices and reducing inter-reviewer variability. To improve model transparency, individual variant predictions are able to be presented as part of reviewer workflows.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Reducing Sanger Confirmation Testing through False Positive Prediction Algorithms 97%
- Genome Alert!: a standardized procedure for genomic variant reinterpretation and automated genotype-phenotype reassessment in clinical routine 94%
- Evaluating the impact of modeling choices on the performance of integrated genetic and clinical models 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- OncoGEMINI: Software for Investigating Tumor Variants From Multiple Biopsies With Integrated Cancer Annotations 96%
- MetaRNN: Differentiating Rare Pathogenic and Rare Benign Missense SNVs and InDels Using Deep Learning 94%
- Comparative analysis of functional assay evidence use by ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panels 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Accelerated, Accurate, Hybrid Short and Long Reads Alignment and Variant Calling 94%
- BC-Predict: Mining of signal biomarkers and multilevel validation of cascade classifier for early-stage breast cancer subtyping and prognosis 93%
- Reliable machine learning models in genomic medicine using conformal prediction 92%
"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.