↓ Skip to main content

A visual and curatorial approach to clinical variant prioritization and disease gene discovery in genome-wide diagnostics

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A visual and curatorial approach to clinical variant prioritization and disease gene discovery in genome-wide diagnostics
Published in
Genome Medicine, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13073-016-0261-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Regis A. James, Ian M. Campbell, Edward S. Chen, Philip M. Boone, Mitchell A. Rao, Matthew N. Bainbridge, James R. Lupski, Yaping Yang, Christine M. Eng, Jennifer E. Posey, Chad A. Shaw

Abstract

Genome-wide data are increasingly important in the clinical evaluation of human disease. However, the large number of variants observed in individual patients challenges the efficiency and accuracy of diagnostic review. Recent work has shown that systematic integration of clinical phenotype data with genotype information can improve diagnostic workflows and prioritization of filtered rare variants. We have developed visually interactive, analytically transparent analysis software that leverages existing disease catalogs, such as the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man database (OMIM) and the Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO), to integrate patient phenotype and variant data into ranked diagnostic alternatives. Our tool, "OMIM Explorer" ( http://www.omimexplorer.com ), extends the biomedical application of semantic similarity methods beyond those reported in previous studies. The tool also provides a simple interface for translating free-text clinical notes into HPO terms, enabling clinical providers and geneticists to contribute phenotypes to the diagnostic process. The visual approach uses semantic similarity with multidimensional scaling to collapse high-dimensional phenotype and genotype data from an individual into a graphical format that contextualizes the patient within a low-dimensional disease map. The map proposes a differential diagnosis and algorithmically suggests potential alternatives for phenotype queries-in essence, generating a computationally assisted differential diagnosis informed by the individual's personal genome. Visual interactivity allows the user to filter and update variant rankings by interacting with intermediate results. The tool also implements an adaptive approach for disease gene discovery based on patient phenotypes. We retrospectively analyzed pilot cohort data from the Baylor Miraca Genetics Laboratory, demonstrating performance of the tool and workflow in the re-analysis of clinical exomes. Our tool assigned to clinically reported variants a median rank of 2, placing causal variants in the top 1 % of filtered candidates across the 47 cohort cases with reported molecular diagnoses of exome variants in OMIM Morbidmap genes. Our tool outperformed Phen-Gen, eXtasy, PhenIX, PHIVE, and hiPHIVE in the prioritization of these clinically reported variants. Our integrative paradigm can improve efficiency and, potentially, the quality of genomic medicine by more effectively utilizing available phenotype information, catalog data, and genomic knowledge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Luxembourg 2 2%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 121 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 20%
Researcher 20 16%
Other 14 11%
Student > Master 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 23 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 38 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 10%
Computer Science 11 9%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 28 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 April 2024.
All research outputs
#2,242,878
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#489
of 1,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,042
of 407,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#10
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,611 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 407,978 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.