AMELIE speeds Mendelian diagnosis by matching patient phenotype and genotype to primary literature

The diagnosis of Mendelian disorders requires labor-intensive literature research. Trained clinicians can spend hours looking for the right publication(s) supporting a single gene that best explains a patient's disease. AMELIE (Automatic Mendelian Literature Evaluation) greatly accelerates this...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inScience translational medicine Vol. 12; no. 544
Main Authors Birgmeier, Johannes, Haeussler, Maximilian, Deisseroth, Cole A, Steinberg, Ethan H, Jagadeesh, Karthik A, Ratner, Alexander J, Guturu, Harendra, Wenger, Aaron M, Diekhans, Mark E, Stenson, Peter D, Cooper, David N, Ré, Christopher, Beggs, Alan H, Bernstein, Jonathan A, Bejerano, Gill
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States 20.05.2020
Subjects
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:The diagnosis of Mendelian disorders requires labor-intensive literature research. Trained clinicians can spend hours looking for the right publication(s) supporting a single gene that best explains a patient's disease. AMELIE (Automatic Mendelian Literature Evaluation) greatly accelerates this process. AMELIE parses all 29 million PubMed abstracts and downloads and further parses hundreds of thousands of full-text articles in search of information supporting the causality and associated phenotypes of most published genetic variants. AMELIE then prioritizes patient candidate variants for their likelihood of explaining any patient's given set of phenotypes. Diagnosis of singleton patients (without relatives' exomes) is the most time-consuming scenario, and AMELIE ranked the causative gene at the very top for 66% of 215 diagnosed singleton Mendelian patients from the Deciphering Developmental Disorders project. Evaluating only the top 11 AMELIE-scored genes of 127 (median) candidate genes per patient resulted in a rapid diagnosis in more than 90% of cases. AMELIE-based evaluation of all cases was 3 to 19 times more efficient than hand-curated database-based approaches. We replicated these results on a retrospective cohort of clinical cases from Stanford Children's Health and the Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research. An analysis web portal with our most recent update, programmatic interface, and code is available at AMELIE.stanford.edu.
ISSN:1946-6242
DOI:10.1126/scitranslmed.aau9113