ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025
Clinical and data-driven optimization of Genomiser for rare disease patients: experience from the Hong Kong Genome Project.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2025. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genomiser is a phenotype-driven tool that prioritizes coding and non-coding variants by relevance in rare disease diagnosis; yet comprehensive evaluation of its performance on real-life whole genome sequencing data is lacking. The Hong Kong Genome Project had initially incorporated Exomiser in the diagnostic pipeline. This study evaluated the feasibility of upgrading from Exomiser to Genomiser with three modifications: extension of the interval filter to include ±2000 bp from transcript boundaries, adjusting minor allele frequency (MAF) filter to 3%, and the inclusion of SpliceAI. A total of 985 patients with disclosed whole genome sequencing test results were included in this study, of which 207 positive cases (14 attributed to non-coding variants) were used for Genomiser parameter optimization by means of sensitivity evaluation. Under the default parameter setting, Genomiser achieved lower sensitivity compared to Exomiser (70.15% vs. 72.14%, top-3 candidates; 74.63% vs. 80.60%, top-5 candidates). Further investigation noted that this was attributed to non-coding variant noise influenced by Regulatory Mendelian Mutation (ReMM) scoring metrics. This issue was mitigated when a previously optimized ReMM score was applied as a filtering cut-off (ReMM = 0.963), improving Genomiser's sensitivity (92.54% vs. 89.55%, top-15 candidates). We further evaluated the optimized parameter in a cohort of 778 negative cases and detected 20 non-coding variants (2.6% added yield), with 5 validated to be disease-causing. Our proposed approach adheres to American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology and ClinGen variant interpretation guidelines to ensure interpretable results and integrates non-coding variant analysis into clinical pipelines.
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.