Cited by 106Genomics and Rare DiseasesGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Xrare: a machine learning method jointly modeling phenotypes and genetic evidence for rare disease diagnosis

Open access
Li, Qigang, Zhao, Keyan, Bustamante, Carlos D., Ma, Xin, Wong, Wing H.·2019·Genetics in Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: Despite the successful progress next-generation sequencing technologies has achieved in diagnosing the genetic cause of rare Mendelian diseases, the current diagnostic rate is still far from satisfactory because of heterogeneity, imprecision, and noise in disease phenotype descriptions and insufficient utilization of expert knowledge in clinical genetics. To overcome these difficulties, we present a novel method called Xrare for the prioritization of causative gene variants in rare disease diagnosis. METHODS: We propose a new phenotype similarity scoring method called Emission-Reception Information Content (ERIC), which is highly tolerant of noise and imprecision in clinical phenotypes. We utilize medical genetic domain knowledge by designing genetic features implementing American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines. RESULTS: ERIC score ranked consistently higher for disease genes than other phenotypic similarity scores in the presence of imprecise and noisy phenotypes. Extensive simulations and real clinical data demonstrated that Xrare outperforms existing alternative methods by 10-40% at various genetic diagnosis scenarios. CONCLUSION: The Xrare model is learned from a large database of clinical variants, and derives its strength from the tight integration of medical genetics features and phenotypic features similarity scores. Xrare provides the clinical community with a robust and powerful tool for variant prioritization.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41436-019-0439-8

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There are limited approaches for phenotype-based diagnosis, and none automatically learn phenotypic and/or genotypic features over patient phenotype terms.

    “While deep learning approaches exist for image-based diagnosis10,11, there are limited approaches for phenotype-based diagnosis, and none automatically learn phenotypic and/or genotypic features over patient phenotype terms23–28,44.”

    From Few shot learning for phenotype-driven diagnosis of patients with rare genetic diseases (2025) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) names several phenotype-driven diagnostic methods, and the Discussion (page unavailable) describes Xrare as combining a phenotype similarity measure with genetic features through machine learning. These passages support the distinction between using phenotype terms and learning features from them, but they do not establish that approaches are limited or that none automatically learn features over patient phenotype terms. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [20]Resnik P. Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 1. IJCAI ’95. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers; 1995:448–453.
  2. [22]Jiang JJ, Conrath DW. Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the 10th Research on Computational Linguistics International Conference. Taipei, Taiwan: The Association for Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing (ACLCLP); 1997:19–33.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, Q., Zhao, K., Bustamante, C. D., Ma, X., & Wong, W. H.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Ma, Xin
  • Wong, Wing H.
Venue
Genetics in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
21
Issue
9
Pages
2126-2134
ISSN
1098-3600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2911737122
Cited by
106
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 2
FWCI
6.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genetics in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (P50-HG007735)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (P50HG007735, R01HG007834)
  • National Cancer Institute (P20CA096470)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
rare disease diagnosis, monogenic disorders, variant prioritization, ACMG guidelines, genetic characteristics, medical genetics
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Genetic Testing, Genotype, Humans, Mutation, Phenotype, Software, Genetic Variation, Computational Biology, Genomics, Rare Diseases, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, Exome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review