ArticleMetabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society2023
Application of machine learning tools and integrated OMICS for screening and diagnosis of inborn errors of metabolism.
Article in Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early identification and diagnosis of fournier gangrene: a machine learning approach integrating serological characterization.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Illuminating diabetesWorld journal of diabetes · 2025Review
- Newborn screening for central congenital hypothyroidism: past, present and future.European thyroid journal · 2025Review
- The Multi-Omic Approach to Newborn Screening: Opportunities and Challenges.International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Review
- The significance of machine learning in neonatal screening for inherited metabolic diseases.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTandem mass spectrometry (TMS) has emerged an important screening tool for various metabolic disorders in newborns. However, there is inherent risk of false positive outcomes. Objective To establish analyte-specific cutoffs in TMS by integrating metabolomics and genomics data to avoid false positivity and false negativity and improve its clinical utility.
methodsTMS was performed on 572 healthy and 3000 referred newborns. Urine organic acid analysis identified 23 types of inborn errors in 99 referred newborns. Whole exome sequencing was performed in 30 positive cases. The impact of physiological changes such as age, gender, and birthweight on various analytes was explored in healthy newborns. Machine learning tools were used to integrate demographic data with metabolomics and genomics data to establish disease-specific cut-offs; identify primary and secondary markers; build classification and regression trees (CART) for better differential diagnosis; for pathway modeling.
resultsThis integration helped in differentiating B12 deficiency from methylmalonic acidemia (MMA) and propionic acidemia (Phi coefficient=0.93); differentiating transient tyrosinemia from tyrosinemia type 1 (Phi coefficient=1.00); getting clues about the possible molecular defect in MMA to initiate appropriate intervention (Phi coefficient=1.00); to link pathogenicity scores with metabolomics profile in tyrosinemia (r2=0.92). CART model helped in establishing differential diagnosis of urea cycle disorders (Phi coefficient=1.00).
conclusionCalibrated cut-offs of different analytes in TMS and machine learning-based establishment of disease-specific thresholds of these markers through integrated OMICS have helped in improved differential diagnosis with significant reduction of the false positivity and false negativity rates.
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.