Jian Yang1,2, Liqi Shu3, Huilong Duan2, Haomin Li4. 1. The Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health, Binsheng Road 3333#, Hangzhou, 310052, Zhejiang, China. 2. The College of Biomedical Engineering and Instrument Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. 3. Rhode Island Hospital, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Rhode Island, USA. 4. The Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health, Binsheng Road 3333#, Hangzhou, 310052, Zhejiang, China. hmli@zju.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Phenotype-based rapid diagnosis can make up for the time-consuming genetic sequencing diagnosis of rare diseases. However, the collected phenotypes of patients can sometimes be inaccurate or incomplete, which limits the accuracy of diagnostic results. To solve this problem, we try to design a phenotype-based differential diagnosis process for rare diseases to achieve rapid and accurate diagnosis of rare diseases. METHODS: The core of the differential diagnosis of rare diseases is to optimize the phenotype information of a specific patient and the visualized comparative analysis of diseases. To recommend additional phenotypes, replace the fuzzy phenotypes and filter the unexplained phenotypes for patients, we constructed a phenotype hierarchical network and a disease-phenotype differential network and calculated the phenotype co-occurrence relationship. In addition, we designed a visual comparative analysis method to explore the correlation and difference of disease phenotypes. RESULTS: The evaluation based on the published 10 rare disease cases demonstrated that after the optimization of patient phenotype information through our differential diagnosis, the target disease often got a better ranking and recommendation score than before. We have deployed this scheme on the RDmap project ( http://rdmap.nbscn.org ). CONCLUSION: Compared to genetic and molecular analysis, phenotype-based diagnosis is faster, cheaper, and easier. The differential diagnosis process we designed can optimize the phenotype information of patients and better locate the target disease. It can also help to make screening decisions before genetic testing.
PURPOSE: Phenotype-based rapid diagnosis can make up for the time-consuming genetic sequencing diagnosis of rare diseases. However, the collected phenotypes of patients can sometimes be inaccurate or incomplete, which limits the accuracy of diagnostic results. To solve this problem, we try to design a phenotype-based differential diagnosis process for rare diseases to achieve rapid and accurate diagnosis of rare diseases. METHODS: The core of the differential diagnosis of rare diseases is to optimize the phenotype information of a specific patient and the visualized comparative analysis of diseases. To recommend additional phenotypes, replace the fuzzy phenotypes and filter the unexplained phenotypes for patients, we constructed a phenotype hierarchical network and a disease-phenotype differential network and calculated the phenotype co-occurrence relationship. In addition, we designed a visual comparative analysis method to explore the correlation and difference of disease phenotypes. RESULTS: The evaluation based on the published 10 rare disease cases demonstrated that after the optimization of patient phenotype information through our differential diagnosis, the target disease often got a better ranking and recommendation score than before. We have deployed this scheme on the RDmap project ( http://rdmap.nbscn.org ). CONCLUSION: Compared to genetic and molecular analysis, phenotype-based diagnosis is faster, cheaper, and easier. The differential diagnosis process we designed can optimize the phenotype information of patients and better locate the target disease. It can also help to make screening decisions before genetic testing.
Authors: Hussein Daoud; Stephanie M Luco; Rui Li; Eric Bareke; Chandree Beaulieu; Olga Jarinova; Nancy Carson; Sarah M Nikkel; Gail E Graham; Julie Richer; Christine Armour; Dennis E Bulman; Pranesh Chakraborty; Michael Geraghty; Matthew A Lines; Thierry Lacaze-Masmonteil; Jacek Majewski; Kym M Boycott; David A Dyment Journal: CMAJ Date: 2016-05-30 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Lude Franke; Harm van Bakel; Like Fokkens; Edwin D de Jong; Michael Egmont-Petersen; Cisca Wijmenga Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2006-04-25 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Peter N Robinson; Sebastian Köhler; Sebastian Bauer; Dominik Seelow; Denise Horn; Stefan Mundlos Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2008-10-23 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Monica H Wojcik; Talia S Schwartz; Inbar Yamin; Heather L Edward; Casie A Genetti; Meghan C Towne; Pankaj B Agrawal Journal: Genet Med Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 8.822