Genetic counselor roles in the undiagnosed diseases network research study: Clinical care, collaboration, and curation

Author(s):  
Jennefer N. Kohler ◽  
Emily G. Kelley ◽  
Brenna M. Boyd ◽  
Catherine H. Sillari ◽  
Shruti Marwaha ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Shilpa Nadimpalli Kobren ◽  
◽  
Dustin Baldridge ◽  
Matt Velinder ◽  
Joel B. Krier ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose Genomic sequencing has become an increasingly powerful and relevant tool to be leveraged for the discovery of genetic aberrations underlying rare, Mendelian conditions. Although the computational tools incorporated into diagnostic workflows for this task are continually evolving and improving, we nevertheless sought to investigate commonalities across sequencing processing workflows to reveal consensus and standard practice tools and highlight exploratory analyses where technical and theoretical method improvements would be most impactful. Methods We collected details regarding the computational approaches used by a genetic testing laboratory and 11 clinical research sites in the United States participating in the Undiagnosed Diseases Network via meetings with bioinformaticians, online survey forms, and analyses of internal protocols. Results We found that tools for processing genomic sequencing data can be grouped into four distinct categories. Whereas well-established practices exist for initial variant calling and quality control steps, there is substantial divergence across sites in later stages for variant prioritization and multimodal data integration, demonstrating a diversity of approaches for solving the most mysterious undiagnosed cases. Conclusion The largest differences across diagnostic workflows suggest that advances in structural variant detection, noncoding variant interpretation, and integration of additional biomedical data may be especially promising for solving chronically undiagnosed cases.


2021 ◽  
Vol 132 ◽  
pp. S187
Author(s):  
Laurie Findley ◽  
Jill Rosenfeld ◽  
Rebecca Spillman ◽  
Heidi Cope ◽  
Kelly Schoch ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 129 (4) ◽  
pp. 243-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Taruscio ◽  
G. Baynam ◽  
H. Cederroth ◽  
S.C. Groft ◽  
E.W. Klee ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 786-790
Author(s):  
Blair Gonsenhauser ◽  
Rose Hallarn ◽  
Daniel Carpenter ◽  
Michael F Para ◽  
Carson R Reider

Participant accrual into research studies is critical to advancing clinical and translational research to clinical care. Without sufficient recruitment, the purpose of any research study cannot be realized; yet, low recruitment and enrollment of participants persist. StudySearch is a web-based application designed to provide an easily readable, publicly accessible, and searchable listing of IRB-approved protocols that are accruing study participants. The Regulatory, Recruitment and Biomedical Informatics Cores of the Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS) at The Ohio State University developed this research study posting platform. Postings include basic descriptive information: study title, purpose of the study, eligibility criteria and study personnel contact information. Language concerning benefits and/or inducements is not included; therefore, while IRB approval for a study to be listed on StudySearch is required, IRB approval of the posted language is not. Studies are listed by one of two methods; one automated and one manual: (1). Studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov are automatically downloaded once a month; or (2). Studies are submitted directly by researchers to the CCTS Regulatory Core staff. In either case, final language is a result of an iterative process between researchers and CCTS staff. Deployed in January 2011 at OSU, this application has grown to approximately 200 studies currently posted and 1500 unique visitors per month. Locally, StudySearch is part of the CCTS recruitment toolkit. Features continue to be modified to better accommodate user behaviors. Nationally, this open source application is available for use.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Souhrid Mukherjee ◽  
Joy D Cogan ◽  
John H Newman ◽  
John A Phillips ◽  
Rizwan Hamid ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTRare diseases affect hundreds of millions of people worldwide, and diagnosing their genetic causes is challenging. The Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN) was formed in 2014 to identify and treat novel rare genetic diseases, and despite many successes, more than half of UDN patients remain undiagnosed. The central hypothesis of this work is that many unsolved rare genetic disorders are caused by multiple variants in more than one gene. However, given the large number of variants in each individual genome, experimentally evaluating even just pairs of variants for potential to cause disease is currently infeasible. To address this challenge, we developed DiGePred, a random forest classifier for identifying candidate digenic disease gene pairs using features derived from biological networks, genomics, evolutionary history, and functional annotations. We trained the DiGePred classifier using DIDA, the largest available database of known digenic disease causing gene pairs, and several sets of non-digenic gene pairs, including variant pairs derived from unaffected relatives of UDN patients. DiGePred achieved high precision and recall in cross-validation and on a held out test set (PR area under the curve >77%), and we further demonstrate its utility using novel digenic pairs from the recent literature. In contrast to other approaches, DiGePred also appropriately controls the number of false positives when applied in realistic clinical settings like the UDN. Finally, to facilitate the rapid screening of variant gene pairs for digenic disease potential, we freely provide the predictions of DiGePred on all human gene pairs. Our work facilitates the discovery of genetic causes for rare non-monogenic diseases by providing a means to rapidly evaluate variant gene pairs for the potential to cause digenic disease.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuancong Wang ◽  
Nikola Vouk ◽  
Creighton Heaukulani ◽  
Thisum Buddhika ◽  
Wijaya Martanto ◽  
...  

UNSTRUCTURED The collection of data from a personal digital device to characterize current health conditions and behaviors that determine how an individual’s health will evolve has been called digital phenotyping. In this paper, we describe the development of and early experiences with a comprehensive digital phenotyping platform: Health Outcomes through Positive Engagement and Self-Empowerment (HOPES). HOPES is based on the open-source <i>Beiwe</i> platform but adds a wider range of data collection, including the integration of wearable devices and further sensor collection from smartphones. Requirements were partly derived from a concurrent clinical trial for schizophrenia that required the development of significant capabilities in HOPES for security, privacy, ease of use, and scalability, based on a careful combination of public cloud and on-premises operation. We describe new data pipelines to clean, process, present, and analyze data. This includes a set of dashboards customized to the needs of research study operations and clinical care. A test use case for HOPES was described by analyzing the digital behavior of 22 participants during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.


2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen F. Macnamara ◽  
Kelly Schoch ◽  
Emily G. Kelley ◽  
Elizabeth Fieg ◽  
Elly Brokamp ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Biswadip Ghosh

The goal of many healthcare research projects and evidence based medicine programs within healthcare organizations is to support clinical care team members by mining evidence from patient outcomes to support future treatment recommendations. In these research studies, the data is often extracted from secondary sources such as patient health records, benefits systems, and other nonresearch data sources. Good data is important to facilitate a good research study and to support clinical decisions using the results. Often multiple applicable healthcare data sources are available for a research study, some of which may be internal to the organization, while others may be external, such as state or national databases. This chapter attempts to develop an understanding of how the quality of data for healthcare research data sets can be established and improved when using secondary data sources, such as clinical or benefits databases, which were created without primary intentions for research use.


Author(s):  
Souhrid Mukherjee ◽  
Joy D. Cogan ◽  
John H. Newman ◽  
John A. Phillips ◽  
Rizwan Hamid ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document