Dataset Information

Using whole genome scores to compare three clinical phenotyping methods in complex diseases.

ABSTRACT: Genome-wide association studies depend on accurate ascertainment of patient phenotype. However, phenotyping is difficult, and it is often treated as an afterthought in these studies because of the expense involved. Electronic health records (EHRs) may provide higher fidelity phenotypes for genomic research than other sources such as administrative data. We used whole genome association models to evaluate different EHR and administrative data-based phenotyping methods in a cohort of 16,858 Caucasian subjects for type 1 diabetes mellitus, type 2 diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease and breast cancer. For each disease, we trained and evaluated polygenic models using three different phenotype definitions: phenotypes derived from billing data, the clinical problem list, or a curated phenotyping algorithm. We observed that for these diseases, the curated phenotype outperformed the problem list, and the problem list outperformed administrative billing data. This suggests that using advanced EHR-derived phenotypes can further increase the power of genome-wide association studies.

SUBMITTER: Song W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6063939 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare four haemoglobin measurement methods in whole blood donors.BackgroundTo safeguard donors, blood services measure haemoglobin concentration in advance of each donation. NHS Blood and Transplant's (NHSBT) customary method have been capillary gravimetry (copper sulphate), followed by venous spectrophotometry (HemoCue) for donors failing gravimetry. However, NHSBT's customary method results in 10% of donors being inappropriately bled (ie, with haemoglobin values below the regulatory threshold).MethodsWe compared the following four methods in 21 840 blood donors (aged ≥18 years) recruited from 10 NHSBT centres in England, with the Sysmex XN-2000 haematology analyser, the reference standard: (1) NHSBT's customary method; (2) "post donation" approach, that is, estimating current haemoglobin concentration from that measured by a haematology analyser at a donor's most recent prior donation; (3) "portable haemoglobinometry" (using capillary HemoCue); (4) non-invasive spectrometry (using MBR Haemospect or Orsense NMB200). We assessed sensitivity; specificity; proportion who would have been inappropriately bled, or rejected from donation ("deferred") incorrectly; and test preference.ResultsCompared with the reference standard, the methods ranged in test sensitivity from 17.0% (MBR Haemospect) to 79.0% (portable haemoglobinometry) in men, and from 19.0% (MBR Haemospect) to 82.8% (portable haemoglobinometry) in women. For specificity, the methods ranged from 87.2% (MBR Haemospect) to 99.9% (NHSBT's customary method) in men, and from 74.1% (Orsense NMB200) to 99.8% (NHSBT's customary method) in women. The proportion of donors who would have been inappropriately bled ranged from 2.2% in men for portable haemoglobinometry to 18.9% in women for MBR Haemospect. The proportion of donors who would have been deferred incorrectly with haemoglobin concentration above the minimum threshold ranged from 0.1% in men for NHSBT's customary method to 20.3% in women for OrSense. Most donors preferred non-invasive spectrometry.ConclusionIn the largest study reporting head-to-head comparisons of four methods to measure haemoglobin prior to blood donation, our results support replacement of NHSBT's customary method with portable haemoglobinometry.

Dataset Information

Using whole genome scores to compare three clinical phenotyping methods in complex diseases.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure