2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2022.08.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A genome sequencing system for universal newborn screening, diagnosis, and precision medicine for severe genetic diseases

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
94
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 96 publications
(94 citation statements)
references
References 75 publications
0
94
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Second, after pruning 97% (60%) of the model weights, Bonito provides 81.20% (72.66%) basecalling accuracy while using 33.33× (2.62×) smaller model using unstructured pruning (structured pruning). Third, the knee point 4 for unstructured pruning and structured pruning is at 98% and 60% where Bonito provides 65.14% and 72.66% of basecalling accuracy, respectively. Beyond the knee-point, Bonito losses its complete prediction power.…”
Section: Analyzing the State-of-the-art Basecallermentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Second, after pruning 97% (60%) of the model weights, Bonito provides 81.20% (72.66%) basecalling accuracy while using 33.33× (2.62×) smaller model using unstructured pruning (structured pruning). Third, the knee point 4 for unstructured pruning and structured pruning is at 98% and 60% where Bonito provides 65.14% and 72.66% of basecalling accuracy, respectively. Beyond the knee-point, Bonito losses its complete prediction power.…”
Section: Analyzing the State-of-the-art Basecallermentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The debate surrounding the use of NGS gene panels and exome or whole genome sequencing instead of or in addition to standard NBS methodologies has focused on the ability to accurately interpret genomic variants, costs for national healthcare systems, and ethical, legal, and social concerns ( Yang et al, 2017 ; Downie et al, 2021 ). Pilot studies are looking at diagnostic rates and comparisons of false positive and false negative results between standard NBS and genomic sequencing approaches ( Bodian et al, 2016 ; Wojcik et al, 2021 ; Kingsmore et al, 2022 ). While more detailed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of both methods is necessary, these initial studies suggest that genomic NBS for selected diseases would be valuable to complement ENBS programs.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In practice this led to an initial time‐to‐treatment goal of day of life (DOL) five. This, in turn, led to a workflow design that included heel‐prick on DOL one, screening by rWGS in 2 or 3 days, performance of the entire process in conformance with CLIA, and 1 day diagnostic interpretation and return of results accompanied by acute management guidance (Kingsmore et al, 2022). The pilot prospective clinical study will inform an assessment of the relative cost: benefit ratio of treatment on DOL 5 versus earlier and later times.A reasonable alternative scheme is that healthy babies would receive standard screening with 2‐week turnaround, with 2‐day turnaround (including shipping) reserved for the 10–15% newborns with some indication of illness that is broader than the ICU criteria used for diagnostic rWGS and that includes physician judgment.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The increasingly broad use of WGS and WES for diagnosis in affected children will continue to reclassify VUS as P, LP, or likely benign. Lastly, the artificial‐intelligence interpretation tool GEM provides a second automated method for variant prioritization (De La Vega et al, 2021; Kingsmore et al, 2022). Notwithstanding these efforts, however, BeginNGS was predicated on initial optimization of precision (positive predictive value) rather than sensitivity. Staged development.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%