Cited by 4Genomics and Rare DiseasesBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies

InpherNet accelerates monogenic disease diagnosis using patients’ candidate genes’ neighbors

Open access
Yoo, Boyoung, Birgmeier, Johannes, Bernstein, Jonathan A., Bejerano, Gill·2021·Genetics in Medicine

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Purpose Roughly 70% of suspected Mendelian disease patients remain undiagnosed after genome sequencing, partly because knowledge about pathogenic genes is incomplete and constantly growing. Generating a novel pathogenic gene hypothesis from patient data can be time-consuming especially where cohort-based analysis is not available.Methods Each patient genome contains dozens to hundreds of candidate variants. Many sources of indirect evidence about each candidate may be considered. We introduce InpherNet, a network-based machine learning approach leveraging Monarch Initiative data to accelerate this process.Results InpherNet ranks candidate genes based on orthologs, paralogs, functional pathway members, and colocalized interaction partner gene neighbors. It can propose novel pathogenic genes and reveal known pathogenic genes whose diagnosed patient-based annotation is missing or partial. InpherNet is applied to patient cases where the causative gene is incorrectly ranked low by clinical gene-ranking methods that use only patient-derived evidence. InpherNet correctly ranks the causative gene top 1 or top 1-5 in roughly twice as many cases as seven comparable tools, including in cases where no clinical evidence for the diagnostic gene is in our knowledgebase.Conclusion InpherNet improves the state of the art in considering candidate gene neighbors to accelerate monogenic diagnosis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41436-021-01238-2

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yoo, B., Birgmeier, J., Bernstein, J. A., & Bejerano, G.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Bejerano, Gill
Venue
Genetics in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-10
Volume
23
Issue
10
Pages
1984-1992
ISSN
1098-3600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3181227402
Cited by
4
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genetics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
School of Medicine, Stanford University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Keywords
monogenic disorders, candidate gene prioritization, gene network analysis, orthologs and paralogs, pathway enrichment, Monarch Initiative, undiagnosed patients, genome sequencing
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Humans, Cohort Studies, Genetic Diseases, Inborn, Knowledge Bases

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