ArticleScientific reports2024
Refined preferences of prioritizers improve intelligent diagnosis for Mendelian diseases.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical and data-driven optimization of Genomiser for rare disease patients: experience from the Hong Kong Genome Project.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Phenotype-guided gene prioritizers have proved a highly efficient approach to identifying causal genes for Mendelian diseases. In our previous study, we preliminarily evaluated the performance of ten prioritizers. However, all the selected software was run based on default settings and singleton mode. With a large-scale family dataset from Deciphering Developmental Disorders (DDD) project (N = 305) and an in-house trio cohort (N = 152), the four optimal performers in our prior study including Exomiser, PhenIX, AMELIE, and LIRCIAL were further assessed through parameter optimization and/or the utilization of trio mode. The in-depth assessment revealed high diagnostic yields of the four prioritizers with refined preferences, each alone or together: (1) 83.3-91.8% of the causal genes were presented among the first ten candidates in the final ranking lists of the four tools; (2) Over 97.7% of the causal genes were successfully captured within the top 50 by either of the four software. Exomiser did best in directly hitting the target (ranking the causal gene at the very top) while LIRICAL displayed a predominant overall detection capability. Besides, cases affected by low-penetrance and high-frequency pathogenic variants were found misjudged during the automated prioritization process. The discovery of the limitations shed light on the specific directions of future enhancement for causal-gene ranking tools.
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.