Cited by 162Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationGenomics and Rare DiseasesMachine Learning in Healthcare

Artificial intelligence (AI) in rare diseases: is the future brighter?

Open access
Brasil, Sandra, Pascoal, Carlota, Francisco, Rita, dos Reis Ferreira, Vanessa, A. Videira, Paula, Valadão, Gonçalo·2019·Genes

Abstract

The amount of data collected and managed in (bio)medicine is ever-increasing. Thus, there is a need to rapidly and efficiently collect, analyze, and characterize all this information. Artificial intelligence (AI), with an emphasis on deep learning, holds great promise in this area and is already being successfully applied to basic research, diagnosis, drug discovery, and clinical trials. Rare diseases (RDs), which are severely underrepresented in basic and clinical research, can particularly benefit from AI technologies. Of the more than 7000 RDs described worldwide, only 5% have a treatment. The ability of AI technologies to integrate and analyze data from different sources (e.g., multi-omics, patient registries, and so on) can be used to overcome RDs’ challenges (e.g., low diagnostic rates, reduced number of patients, geographical dispersion, and so on). Ultimately, RDs’ AI-mediated knowledge could significantly boost therapy development. Presently, there are AI approaches being used in RDs and this review aims to collect and summarize these advances. A section dedicated to congenital disorders of glycosylation (CDG), a particular group of orphan RDs that can serve as a potential study model for other common diseases and RDs, has also been included.

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 · 10.3390/genes10120978

Cites

99 of 99 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?

  • Surveys show that patient satisfaction, provider training, research and quality improvement activities vary among medical centers.

    “Surveys show that patient satisfaction, provider training, research and quality improvement activities vary among medical centers (739,740);”

    From Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia—Current Insights in Pathophysiology, Diagnostics, and Management (2022) · cites this paper as [739]

    Section 6 discusses differences among rare-disease patient registries, not survey findings comparing medical centers. The Discussion and Conclusions discusses patient experience, but our copy provides no survey results on patient satisfaction, provider training, research, or quality-improvement activities across centers. Searches for those terms found no passage addressing the claim; page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    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

3 of the 102 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [11]Bishop C.M. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning Information Science and Statistics Springer New York, NY, USA 2006 978-0-387-31073-2

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brasil, S., Pascoal, C., Francisco, R., dos Reis Ferreira, V., A. Videira, P., & Valadão, G.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Nova de Lisboa (PT)
  • Portuguese Association for CDG, 2820-381 Lisboa, Portugal
  • Universidade Politécnica de Lisboa (PT)
Venue
Genes
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-11-27
Volume
10
Issue
12
Pages
978
ISSN
2073-4425 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2989824398
Cited by
160
References
102
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 11
FWCI
0.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (SFRH/BD/138647/2018, SFRH/BD/124326/2016)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
artificial intelligence, rare diseases, deep learning, congenital disorders of glycosylation, multi-omics integration, patient registry, drug discovery, diagnosis, clinical trials, translational medicine
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Rare Diseases, Drug Discovery, Precision Medicine

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