BACKGROUND: Precision medicine is set to deliver a rich new data set of genomic information. However, the number of certified specialists in the United States is small, with only 4244 genetic counselors and 1302 clinical geneticists. We conducted a national survey of 264 medical professionals to evaluate how they interpret genetic test results, determine their confidence and self-efficacy of interpreting genetic test results with patients, and capture their opinions and experiences with direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GT). METHODS: Participants were grouped into two categories, genetic specialists (genetic counselors and clinical geneticists) and medical providers (primary care, internists, physicians assistants, advanced nurse practitioners, etc.). The survey (full instrument can be found in the Additional file 1) presented three genetic test report scenarios for interpretation: a genetic risk for diabetes, genomic sequencing for symptoms report implicating a potential HMN7B: distal hereditary motor neuropathy VIIB diagnosis, and a statin-induced myopathy risk. Participants were also asked about their opinions on DTC-GT results and rank their own perceived level of preparedness to review genetic test results with patients. RESULTS: The rates of correctly interpreting results were relatively high (74.4% for the providers compared to the specialists 83.4%) and age, prior genetic test consultation experience, and level of trust assigned to the reports were associated with higher correct interpretation rates. The self-selected efficacy and the level of preparedness to consult on a patients genetic results were higher for the specialists than the provider group. CONCLUSION: Specialists remain the best group to assist patients with DTC-GT, however, primary care providers may still provide accurate interpretation of test results when specialists are unavailable.

BACKGROUND:Precision medicine is set to deliver a rich new data set of genomic information. However, the number of certified specialists in the United States is small, with only 4244 genetic counselors and 1302 clinical geneticists. We conducted a national survey of 264 medical professionals to evaluate how they interpret genetic test results, determine their confidence and self-efficacy of interpreting genetic test results with patients, and capture their opinions and experiences with direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GT). METHODS:Participants were grouped into two categories, genetic specialists (genetic counselors and clinical geneticists) and medical providers (primary care, internists, physicians assistants, advanced nurse practitioners, etc.). The survey (full instrument can be found in the Additional file 1) presented three genetic test report scenarios for interpretation: a genetic risk for diabetes, genomic sequencing for symptoms report implicating a potential HMN7B: distal hereditary motor neuropathy VIIB diagnosis, and a statin-induced myopathy risk. Participants were also asked about their opinions on DTC-GT results and rank their own perceived level of preparedness to review genetic test results with patients. RESULTS:The rates of correctly interpreting results were relatively high (74.4% for the providers compared to the specialist's 83.4%) and age, prior genetic test consultation experience, and level of trust assigned to the reports were associated with higher correct interpretation rates. The self-selected efficacy and the level of preparedness to consult on a patient's genetic results were higher for the specialists than the provider group. CONCLUSION:Specialists remain the best group to assist patients with DTC-GT, however, primary care providers may still provide accurate interpretation of test results when specialists are unavailable.

Objectives

The study aimed to understand potential barriers to the adoption of health information technology projects that are released as free and open source software (FOSS).

Methods

We conducted a survey of research consortia participants engaged in genomic medicine implementation to assess perceived institutional barriers to the adoption of three systems: ClinGen electronic health record (EHR) Toolkit, DocUBuild, and MyResults.org. The survey included eight barriers from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), with additional barriers identified from a qualitative analysis of open-ended responses.

Results

We analyzed responses from 24 research consortia participants from 18 institutions. In total, 14 categories of perceived barriers were evaluated, which were consistent with other observed barriers to FOSS adoption. The most frequent perceived barriers included lack of adaptability of the system, lack of institutional priority to implement, lack of trialability, lack of advantage of alternative systems, and complexity.

Conclusion

In addition to understanding potential barriers, we recommend some strategies to address them (where possible), including considerations for genomic medicine. Overall, FOSS developers need to ensure systems are easy to trial and implement and need to clearly articulate benefits of their systems, especially when alternatives exist. Institutional champions will remain a critical component to prioritizing genomic medicine projects.

Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems typically define laboratory test results using the Laboratory Observation Identifier Names and Codes (LOINC) and can transmit them using Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR) standards. LOINC has not yet been semantically integrated with computational resources for phenotype analysis. Here, we provide a method for mapping LOINC-encoded laboratory test results transmitted in FHIR standards to Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) terms. We annotated the medical implications of 2923 commonly used laboratory tests with HPO terms. Using these annotations, our software assesses laboratory test results and converts each result into an HPO term. We validated our approach with EHR data from 15,681 patients with respiratory complaints and identified known biomarkers for asthma. Finally, we provide a freely available SMART on FHIR application that can be used within EHR systems. Our approach allows readily available laboratory tests in EHR to be reused for deep phenotyping and exploits the hierarchical structure of HPO to integrate distinct tests that have comparable medical interpretations for association studies.

OBJECTIVE: High BMI is associated with many comorbidities and mortality. This study aimed to elucidate the overall clinical risk of obesity using a genome- and phenome-wide approach. METHODS: This study performed a phenome-wide association study of BMI using a clinical cohort of 736,726 adults. This was followed by genetic association studies using two separate cohorts: one consisting of 65,174 adults in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network and another with 405,432 participants in the UK Biobank. RESULTS: Class 3 obesity was associated with 433 phenotypes, representing 59.3% of all billing codes in individuals with severe obesity. A genome-wide polygenic risk score for BMI, accounting for 7.5% of variance in BMI, was associated with 296 clinical diseases, including strong associations with type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, hypertension, and chronic liver disease. In all three cohorts, 199 phenotypes were associated with class 3 obesity and polygenic risk for obesity, including novel associations such as increased risk of renal failure, venous insufficiency, and gastroesophageal reflux. CONCLUSIONS: This combined genomic and phenomic systematic approach demonstrated that obesity has a strong genetic predisposition and is associated with a considerable burden of disease across all disease classes.

Background

The Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation (CAGI) aims to advance the state-of-the-art for computational prediction of genetic variant impact, particularly where relevant to disease. The five complete editions of the CAGI community experiment comprised 50 challenges, in which participants made blind predictions of phenotypes from genetic data, and these were evaluated by independent assessors.

Results

Performance was particularly strong for clinical pathogenic variants, including some difficult-to-diagnose cases, and extends to interpretation of cancer-related variants. Missense variant interpretation methods were able to estimate biochemical effects with increasing accuracy. Assessment of methods for regulatory variants and complex trait disease risk was less definitive and indicates performance potentially suitable for auxiliary use in the clinic.

Conclusions

Results show that while current methods are imperfect, they have major utility for research and clinical applications. Emerging methods and increasingly large, robust datasets for training and assessment promise further progress ahead.