ArticleArXiv2024
Assessing the Utility of Large Language Models for Phenotype-Driven Gene Prioritization in Rare Genetic Disorder Diagnosis.
Article in ArXiv, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Phenotype-driven gene prioritization is a critical process in the diagnosis of rare genetic disorders for identifying and ranking potential disease-causing genes based on observed physical traits or phenotypes. While traditional approaches rely on curated knowledge graphs with phenotype-gene relations, recent advancements in large language models have opened doors to the potential of AI predictions through extensive training on diverse corpora and complex models. This study conducted a comprehensive evaluation of five large language models, including two Generative Pre-trained Transformers series, and three Llama2 series, assessing their performance across three key metrics: task completeness, gene prediction accuracy, and adherence to required output structures. Various experiments explored combinations of models, prompts, input types, and task difficulty levels. Our findings reveal that even the best-performing LLM, GPT-4, achieved an accuracy of 16.0%, which still lags behind traditional bioinformatics tools. Prediction accuracy increased with the parameter/model size. A similar increasing trend was observed for the task completion rate, with complicated prompts more likely to increase task completeness in models smaller than GPT-4. However, complicated prompts are more likely to decrease the structure compliance rate, but no prompt effects on GPT-4. Compared to HPO term-based input, LLM was also able to achieve better than random prediction accuracy by taking free-text input, but slightly lower than with the HPO input. Bias analysis showed that certain genes, such as MECP2, CDKL5, and SCN1A, are more likely to be top-ranked, potentially explaining the variances observed across different datasets. This study provides valuable insights into the integration of LLMs within genomic analysis, contributing to the ongoing discussion on the utilization of advanced LLMs in clinical workflows.
Identifiers
38562452PMC10984004What 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.