ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2019
Finding Diagnostically Useful Patterns in Quantitative Phenotypic Data.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Insights into the ANKRD11 variants and short-stature phenotype through literature review and ClinVar database search.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Review
- IMPROVE-DD: Integrating multiple phenotype resources optimizes variant evaluation in genetically determined developmental disorders.HGG advances · 2023Article
- Deep phenotyping and whole-exome sequencing improved the diagnostic yield for nuclear pedigrees with neurodevelopmental disorders.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2022Article
- Genetic and Phenotypic Spectrum of KBG Syndrome: A Report of 13 New Chinese Cases and a Review of the Literature.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Untargeted Metabolomics for Metabolic Diagnostic Screening with Automated Data Interpretation Using a Knowledge-Based Algorithm.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Trio-based whole-exome sequence (WES) data have established confident genetic diagnoses in ∼40% of previously undiagnosed individuals recruited to the Deciphering Developmental Disorders (DDD) study. Here we aim to use the breadth of phenotypic information recorded in DDD to augment diagnosis and disease variant discovery in probands. Median Euclidean distances (mEuD) were employed as a simple measure of similarity of quantitative phenotypic data within sets of ≥10 individuals with plausibly causative de novo mutations (DNM) in 28 different developmental disorder genes. 13/28 (46.4%) showed significant similarity for growth or developmental milestone metrics, 10/28 (35.7%) showed similarity in HPO term usage, and 12/28 (43%) showed no phenotypic similarity. Pairwise comparisons of individuals with high-impact inherited variants to the 32 individuals with causative DNM in ANKRD11 using only growth z-scores highlighted 5 likely causative inherited variants and two unrecognized DNM resulting in an 18% diagnostic uplift for this gene. Using an independent approach, naive Bayes classification of growth and developmental data produced reasonably discriminative models for the 24 DNM genes with sufficiently complete data. An unsupervised naive Bayes classification of 6,993 probands with WES data and sufficient phenotypic information defined 23 in silico syndromes (ISSs) and was used to test a "phenotype first" approach to the discovery of causative genotypes using WES variants strictly filtered on allele frequency, mutation consequence, and evidence of constraint in humans. This highlighted heterozygous de novo nonsynonymous variants in SPTBN2 as causative in three DDD probands.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.