Patients outside the US wait even longer to see healthcare specialists with some appointments scheduled a year out in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia
Data recently released by healthcare consulting firm ECG Management Consultants (ECG) reveals that patients in the United States wait an average of 38 days for healthcare appointments. That figure is a significant stretch from the desired industry standard of 14-day or less wait times, according to Becker’s Hospital Review.
Clinical laboratories serve the needs of physicians who see patients and refer testing needed by patients to labs. Thus, average wait times should be of interest to lab professionals who strive to meet reporting turnaround times for lab test results, particularly given the unique way that ECG conducted its survey of patient wait times.
In “The Waiting Game: New-Patient Appointment Access for US Physicians,” ECG wrote, “Adopting a ‘secret shopper’ approach, we put ourselves in the shoes of the average patient trying to book an appointment. We contacted nearly 4,000 physician practices in 23 major cities across the US, posing as a new, commercially insured patient seeking care for general, nonemergent conditions that typically don’t require a physician referral.”
ECG’s study provides “a realistic view of where and in what specialties patients face the most significant challenges to accessing routine care,” the authors wrote in their published report. The report also includes patients’ appointment-keeping behavior based on length of wait times.
“Consumer expectations have evolved significantly in all industries. From buying a plane ticket to making a restaurant reservation, the consumer experience has been highly optimized and customers in turn have become accustomed to information and services being available at their fingertips. They bring the same expectations about speed and convenience to healthcare,” the researchers explained.
ECG pointed out that when patients are required to wait 14 days or more to see their physicians, no shows and cancellations increase dramatically.
“Numerous studies have shown that patients are significantly less likely to show up for appointments that are scheduled further out,” the study authors noted.
“One of the takeaways was how difficult the patient experience is. Not only did our secret shoppers have to go out and find physicians, they had to sit on the phone sometimes on very long holds and go through multiple barriers and jump through hoops,” Jennifer Moody (above), partner with ECG Management Consultants and one of the authors of the study, told Becker’s Hospital Review. “Even in that case, they weren’t successful in scheduling appointments with all the practices they called. I think of the average consumer who might be having a similar experience,” she added. Lengthy wait times are not believed to be an issue when patients need clinical laboratory tests. (Photo copyright: ECG Management Consultants.)
Getting Authentic Results
To gather the study data, ECG distributed its secret shoppers throughout 23 major US cities, reaching almost 4,000 physician practices (between 145-168 per city) to schedule appointments for non-emergency conditions not needing a physical referral.
The researchers gathered wait times for TNAAs (third next available appointments), a common metric. They chose TNAAs because first and second appointments often produce unclear results due to extenuating circumstances or late cancellations, Becker’s Hospital Review reported.
The researchers recorded TNAAs for the following specialties:
Cardiology (39 days),
Dermatology (40 days),
Family medicine (29 days),
Gastroenterology (48 days),
General surgery (22 days),
Neurology (63 days),
Obstetrics/gynecology (37 days),
Ophthalmology (37 days),
Orthopedic surgery (20 days),
Pediatrics (24 days), and,
Rheumatology (68 days).
They found the average wait time to be 38 days. And “of the 253 metropolitan market and specialty combinations included in this research, only 6% had an average wait time of 14 days or less,” Becker’s reported.
The researchers omitted the physician practices that were unable to either take or return calls, take messages, or provide a hold time under five minutes to give the secret shopper an answer, Becker’s added.
Jennifer Moody, Partner, ECG Management Consultants, one of the authors of the study, “was particularly surprised by the portion of callers who never even made it to the stage of learning about wait times. Out of 3,712 physician practices, callers were able to secure responses from only 3,079, meaning nearly one in five physician practices could not provide appointment availability information,” Becker’s reported.
The lowest average wait time in all specialties was 27 days in Houston, and the longest was 70 days in Boston. “A key takeaway from the report is that physician concentration does not guarantee timely access, as a major healthcare hub like Boston helps illustrate,” Becker’s noted, adding that physicians in such areas may “devote time to teaching or research over appointments.”
The graphic above, taken from ECG’s published report, shows the average TNAA times recorded by their secret shoppers at medical specialty practices in major cities across the US. (Graphic copyright: ECG Management Consultants.)
Other Country’s Wait Times
Healthcare systems outside the US struggle with patient wait times as well. Forbes reported that patients of Canada’s public health system “faced a median wait of 27.7 weeks for medically necessary treatment from a specialist after being referred by a general practitioner. That’s over six months—the longest ever recorded.”
Patients in Nova Scotia wait even longer. There they “face a median wait of 56.7 weeks—more than a year—for specialist treatment following referral by a general practitioner. Those on Prince Edward Island are also in the year-long waiting club—a median of just over 55 weeks,” Forbes noted.
And in the UK, a recent survey found that “more than 150,000 patients had to wait a day in A&E [accident and emergency] before getting a hospital bed last year, according to new data,” with the majority of those patients over the age of 65, according to The Guardian.
ECG suggestions that may reduce wait times include:
Adopt automation and self-service tools in an “easily navigable platform” that enables patients to schedule appointments 24/7.
Ensure healthcare providers are “utilized appropriately and at the top of their license.”
Address inequities in access to healthcare regardless of patients’ location or socioeconomic status.
There is more in the ECG report that hospitals—as well as clinical laboratories—can use to reduce patient wait times to see care providers. As the authors wrote, “For patients, the first step of the care journey shouldn’t be the hardest.”
Regulatory agencies in UK and US have yet to address dangers inherent in customer misunderstanding of DTC medical laboratory genetic test results
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) medical laboratory genetic tests are gaining popularity across the globe. But recent research out of the United Kingdom questions the reliability of these tests. The study, according to The Guardian, found that “Over the counter genetic tests in the UK that assess the risk of cancer or heart problems fail to identify 89% of those in danger of getting killer diseases.”
According the PGS website, “each PGS in the catalog is consistently annotated with relevant metadata; including scoring files (variants, effect alleles/weights), annotations of how the PGS was developed and applied, and evaluations of their predictive performance.”
However, the researchers told The Guardian, “Polygenic risk scores performed poorly in population screening, individual risk prediction, and population risk stratification. Strong claims about the effect of polygenic risk scores on healthcare seem to be disproportionate to their performance.”
“Strong claims have been made about the potential of polygenic risk scores in medicine, but our study shows that this is not justified,” Aroon Hingorani, PhD (above), Professor of Genetic Epidemiology at UCL and lead author of the study, told The Guardian. “We found that, when held to the same standards as employed for other tests in medicine, polygenic risk scores performed poorly for prediction and screening across a range of common diseases.” Consumer misunderstanding of DTC medical laboratory genetic tests is a real danger. (Photo copyright: University College London.)
Polygenic Scores Not Beneficial to Cancer Screening
To complete their study, the UCL researchers compared PGS genetic risk data to conventional clinical laboratory testing methods and discovered some troubling results. They include:
On average, only 11% of individuals who developed a disease had been identified by the tests.
A 5% false positive rate where people were informed that they would get a disease within 10 years but did not.
PGS only identified 10% of people who later developed breast cancer.
The researchers state in their BMJ Medicine paper that polygenic risk scores are not the same as testing for certain gene mutations, which could be critical in screening for some cancers. They also wrote that discovering genetic variants associated with the risk for disease is still crucial for drug development.
“It has been suggested that polygenic risk scores could be introduced early on to help prevent breast cancer and heart disease but, in the examples we looked at, we found that the scores contributed little, if any, health benefit while adding cost and complexity,” research physician and epidemiologist Sir Nicholas Wald, FRS, FRCP, FMedSci, Professor of Preventive Medicine at UCL Institute of Health Informatics and co-author of the study, told the Jersey Evening Post.
“Our results build on evidence that indicates that polygenic risk scores do not have a role in public health screening programs,” Wald added.
“This research study rightly highlights that for many health conditions genetic risk scores alone may have limited usefulness, because other factors such as deprivation, lifestyles, and environment are also important,” clinical epidemiologist Raghib Ali, MD, CEO, Chief Investigator and Chief Medical Officer, Our Future Health UK, told The Guardian.
Our Future Health is a collaboration between public, non-profit, and private sectors to create the UK’s largest health research program. The researchers in this endeavor intend to recruit over five million volunteers and use polygenic risk scores to develop innovative ways to prevent, detect, and treat disease. This program is funded by the UK’s National Health System (NHS).
“[Our] research program will be developing integrated risk scores that will take in all the important risk factors,” Ali explained. “We hope these integrated risk scores can identify people more likely to develop diseases, but this is a relatively new area of science and there are still unanswered questions around it.”
Danger of Misunderstanding DTC Genetic Tests
Here in the US, there have been news stories in recent years about the unreliability of certain genetic tests. Dark Daily covered these stories in previous ebriefs. News stories about the unreliability of genetic tests, particularly those marketed directly to consumers, reveal the problems that existing regulatory schemes have yet to address.
In “Consumer Reports Identifies ‘Potential Pitfalls’ of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests,” we covered CR’s findings that though clinical laboratory and pathology professionals understand the difference between a doctor-ordered genetic health risk (GHR) test and a direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic test, the typical genetic test customer may not. And that, misunderstanding the results of a DTC at-home genetic test can lead to confusion, loss of privacy, and potential harm.
Scientific American also covered the dangers of DTC testing in “The Problem with Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests,” in which the author notes that “despite caveats in ads and on packages, users can fail to understand their limitations,” and that “consumer-grade products are easily misconstrued as appropriate medical tests and create false reassurances in patients who could be at legitimate risk.”
Most clinical laboratory managers and pathologists are probably not surprised that the research performed at UCL shows that there are still issues surrounding genetic tests, particularly those marketed directly to consumers. While direct-to-consumer DNA tests can have some benefits, at this time, they are not always the best option for individuals seeking information about their personal risk for hereditary diseases.
Already-existing clinical laboratory blood test may be new standard for detecting Alzheimer’s biomarkers
In Sweden, an independent study of an existing blood test for Alzheimer’s disease—called ALZpath—determined that this diagnostic assay appears to be “just as good as, if not surpass, lumbar punctures and expensive brain scans at detecting signs of Alzheimer’s in the brain,” according to a report published by The Guardian.
Alzheimer’s disease is one of the worst forms of dementia and it affects more than six million people annually according to the Alzheimer’s Association. Clinical laboratory testing to diagnose the illness traditionally involves painful, invasive spinal taps and brain scans. For that reason, researchers from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden wanted to evaluate the performance of the ALZpath test when compared to these other diagnostic procedures.
Motivated to seek a less costly, less painful, Alzheimer’s biomarker for clinical laboratory testing, neuroscientist Nicholas Ashton, PhD, Assistant Professor of Neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg, led a team of scientists that looked at other common biomarkers used to identify changes in the brain of Alzheimer’s patients. That led them to tau protein-based blood tests and specifically to the ALZpath blood test for Alzheimer’s disease developed by ALZpath, Inc., of Carlsbad, Calif.
In their JAMA article, they wrote, “the pTau217 immunoassay showed similar accuracies to cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in identifying abnormal amyloid β (Aβ) and tau pathologies.”
In an earlier article published in medRxiv, Ashton et al wrote, “Phosphorylated tau (pTau) is a specific blood biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology, with pTau217 considered to have the most utility. However, availability of pTau217 tests for research and clinical use has been limited.”
Thus, the discovery of an existing pTau217 assay (ALZpath) that is accessible and affordable is a boon to Alzheimer’s patients and to the doctors who treat them.
“The ALZpath pTau217 assay showed high diagnostic accuracy in identifying elevated amyloid (AUC, 0.92-0.96; 95%CI 0.89-0.99) and tau (AUC, 0.93-0.97; 95%CI 0.84-0.99) in the brain across all cohorts. These accuracies were significantly higher than other plasma biomarker combinations and equivalent to CSF [cerebrospinal fluid] biomarkers,” an ALZpath press release noted.
“This is an instrumental finding in blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer’s, paving the way for the clinical use of the ALZpath pTau217 assay,” stated Henrik Zetterberg, MD, PhD (above), Professor of Neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg and co-author of the study. “This robust assay is already used in multiple labs around the globe.” Clinical laboratories may soon be receiving doctors’ orders for pTau217 blood tests for Alzheimer’s patients. (Photo copyright: University of Gothenburg.)
Study Details
Ashton’s team conducted a cohort study that “examined data from three single-center observational cohorts.” The cohorts included:
“Participants included individuals with and without cognitive impairment grouped by amyloid and tau (AT) status using PET or CSF biomarkers. Data were analyzed from February to June 2023,” the researchers wrote.
These trials from the US, Canada, and Spain featured 786 participants and featured “either a lumbar puncture or an amyloid PET scan to identify signs of amyloid and tau proteins—hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease,” The Guardian reported, adding that results of the University of Gothenburg’s study showed that the ALZpath pTau217 blood test “was superior to brain atrophy assessments, in identifying signs of Alzheimer’s.”
“80% of individuals could be definitively diagnosed on a blood test without any other investigation,” Ashton told The Guardian.
Diagnosis Needed to Receive Alzheimer’s Disease Treatments
“If you’re going to receive [the new drugs], you need to prove that you have amyloid in the brain,” Ashton told The Guardian. “It’s just impossible to do spinal taps and brain scans on everyone that would need it worldwide. So, this is where the blood test [has] a huge potential.”
Even countries where such drugs were not yet available (like the UK) would benefit, Ashton said, because the test, “Could potentially say that this is not Alzheimer’s disease and it could be another type of dementia, which would help to direct the patient’s management and treatment routine.”
However, Ashton himself noted the limitations of the new findings—specifically that there is no success shown yet in Alzheimer’s drugs being taken by symptom-free individuals.
“If you do have amyloid in the brain at 50 years of age, the blood test will be positive,” he said. “But what we recommend, and what the guidelines recommend with these blood tests, is that these are to help clinicians—so someone must have had some objective concern that they have Alzheimer’s disease, or [that] their memory is declining,” he told The Guardian.
Experts on the Study Findings
“Blood tests could be used to screen everyone over 50-years old every few years, in much the same way as they are now screened for high cholesterol,” David Curtis, MD, PhD, Honorary Professor in the Genetics, Evolution and Environment department at University College London, told The Guardian.
“Results from these tests could be clear enough to not require further follow-up investigations for some people living with Alzheimer’s disease, which could speed up the diagnosis pathway significantly in future,” Richard Oakley, PhD, Associate Director of Research and Innovation at the Alzheimer’s Society, UK, told The Guardian.
Though Oakley found the findings promising, he pointed out what should come next. “We still need to see more research across different communities to understand how effective these blood tests are across everyone who lives with Alzheimer’s disease,” he said.
“Expanding access to this highly accurate Alzheimer’s disease biomarker is crucial for wider evaluation and implementation of AD blood tests,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Neurology.
“ALZpath makers are in discussions with labs in the UK to launch it for clinical use this year, and one of the co-authors, Henrik Zetterberg, MD, PhD, Professor of Neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg, is making the assay available for research use as part of the ‘biomarker factory’ at UCL,” The Guardian reported.
In the US, to be prescribed any of the available Alzheimer’s medications, a doctor must diagnose that the patient has amyloid in the brain. A pTau217 diagnostic blood test could be used to make such a diagnosis. Currently, however, the test is only available “for research studies through select partner labs,” Time reported.
“But later this month, doctors in the US will be able to order the test for use with patients. (Some laboratory-developed tests performed by certain certified labs don’t require clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration.),” Time added.
It may be that the University of Gothenburg study will encourage Alzheimer’s doctors in the UK and around the world to consider ordering pTau217 diagnostic blood tests from clinical laboratories, rather than prescribing spinal taps and brains scans for their Alzheimer’s patients.
This pioneering innovation is consistent with the trend to bring medical services to places more convenient for consumers and was spurred by a study which showed men twice as likely to have heart attacks than women
Patient-facing healthcare gets a boost with this novel program to offer a diagnostic service in locations frequented by men. In an attempt to decrease heart attacks in the UK, the country’s National Health Service (NHS) now employs a novel approach to prevention—bringing blood pressure screenings to the public in barbershops.
This is yet another example of moving diagnostics services out of traditional healthcare settings and reaching people in places that they visit in their daily lives. True, this is a blood pressure test. But once the service is established, it should be easy to collect other types of clinical laboratory specimens at barbershops as well. And if this approach enables healthcare policy makers to reach a population that needs further diagnostic tests—and it’s economically feasible—that may encourage adoption of this approach for other types of health screenings.
According to The Guardian, the screenings will be available at “barbershops, churches, mosques, community centers, and dominoes clubs.” The intention is to ensure screenings are more accessible, to educate the public, and to encourage lifestyle changes that lead to prevention.
This consumer-directed approach to healthcare by the NHS appears to be making a difference. The new screening locations already show promise. In 2023, efforts brought in 150,000 community-based blood pressure screenings by August. That more than doubled the previous year’s 58,000 that were performed by May, The Guardian noted.
“With the number of people living with major illnesses including heart disease and other cardiovascular conditions set to grow substantially over the coming years, it has never been more important to put in place preventive measures like easy-to-access blood pressure checks that can pick up the early signs and risks,” said David Webb (above), Chief Pharmaceutical Officer for England, NHS England, in a news release. Should this program succeed, it’s likely other types of clinical laboratory test specimens could also be collected in barbershops and other convenient locations. (Photo copyright: Paul Stuart/The Pharmaceutical Journal.)
Importance of Screening
According to the UK’s Health Foundation, more than 9.1 million people will have a major illness by 2040, and figures show an increase of 2.5 million from 2019 reports. These figures are “why prevention and early intervention tools such as community blood pressure checks are key priorities for the NHS,” the NHS news release states.
“Having high blood pressure raises the risk of a heart attack, but many men and women remain unaware they may be affected because typically there are no symptoms,” The Guardian reported. “Every year there are 100,000 NHS hospital admissions due to heart attacks—one every five minutes.”
The NHS’ moves were spurred by recent findings announced at the European Society of Cardiology’s 2023 annual meeting. The world’s largest heart conference showcased a 22-year-long study examining the gender-specific risks of cardiovascular diseases. The results clearly showed that men were twice as likely to experience heart attacks and peripheral artery disease than women.
The University of Aberdeen conducted the study which ran from 1993-2018 and followed 20,000 individuals over the age of 40. While researchers noted many factors—such as ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), physical activity, deprivation, consumption of alcohol, and cigarette smoke—a clear defining line landed between male and female participants, The Guardian reported. Additionally,“Men are also more likely to experience a heart attack at a younger age than women.”
And, according to the study, while cardiovascular disease was higher for men during their entire lifetime, “sex differences were most pronounced for myocardial infarction and peripheral artery disease, followed by atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and cardiovascular mortality,” The Guardian reported, adding, “Men also have a 50% higher risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation. The study discovered that men have a 42% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease. The research did not look at why.”
Education Part of Prevention
“Men should start looking early at-risk factors, like obesity, lack of exercise, smoking, alcohol consumption, and reach out to their GP to get those things addressed. The earlier the better. There’s no harm in minimizing your cardiovascular risk,” Tiberiu Pana, MRes, lead researcher and honorary research fellow at the University of Aberdeen, told The Guardian. Pana is also a junior doctor in the NHS and focuses on cardiovascular epidemiology and the brain-heart interactions.
“Coronary heart disease is the most common killer of men. There’s never been a better time to get physically active and replace that pub session with an extra session in the gym,” cardiologist Sonya Babu-Narayan, MBBS, Associate Medical Director at the British Heart Foundation, told The Guardian. Babu-Narayan is also a consultant cardiologist at Royal Brompton Hospital.
Women, however, are not exempt from the risk of heart disease.
“If we consider the effects of heart disease over a lifetime, we need to remember that it costs lives for both men and women,” Babu-Narayan said. “With 30,000 women in the UK admitted to hospital with a heart attack each year, it is vital to dismantle the dogma that heart attacks are the preserve of men. Regardless of gender, cardiovascular disease is the world’s biggest killer and there are steps everyone can take to reduce their risks.”
In addition to the aforementioned community locations for screenings, NHS has launched a few other approaches to meet patients on their own turf.
A mobile blood pressure service named How’s Thi Ticker in Barnsley, South Yorkshire, “travels around local neighborhoods including to barber shops, supermarkets, and community centers, seeing more than a third of people referred to pharmacists with high blood pressure—freeing up GPs and catching early signs of heart attack and stroke risk,” according to the NHS news release.
Future Showing Further Promise
As the process continues, NHS expects to prevent 1,350 cardiovascular events every year, and expects to see 2.5 million more blood pressure checks performed in the community in England as a result of the endeavor, The Guardian noted.
One can only imagine how far this trend can go. Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists can expect healthcare policy makers in the UK to continue their efforts to bring needed diagnostic testing to underserved populations in accessible ways. This should be a win-win financially and in improving the health of the country’s population.
Genetic engineers at the lab used the new tool to generate a catalog of 71 million possible missense variants, classifying 89% as either benign or pathogenic
Genetic engineers continue to use artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning to develop research tools that have implications for clinical laboratories. The latest development involves Google’s DeepMind artificial intelligence lab which has created an AI tool that, they say, can predict whether a single-letter substitution in DNA—known as a missense variant (aka, missense mutation)—is likely to cause disease.
The Google engineers used their new model—dubbed AlphaMissense—to generate a catalog of 71 million possible missense variants. They were able to classify 89% as likely to be either benign or pathogenic mutations. That compares with just 0.1% that have been classified using conventional methods, according to the DeepMind engineers.
This is yet another example of how Google is investing to develop solutions for healthcare and medical care. In this case, DeepMind might find genetic sequences that are associated with disease or health conditions. In turn, these genetic sequences could eventually become biomarkers that clinical laboratories could use to help physicians make earlier, more accurate diagnoses and allow faster interventions that improve patient care.
“AI tools that can accurately predict the effect of variants have the power to accelerate research across fields from molecular biology to clinical and statistical genetics,” wrote Google DeepMind engineers Jun Cheng, PhD (left), and Žiga Avsec, PhD (right), in a blog post describing the new tool. Clinical laboratories benefit from the diagnostic biomarkers generated by this type of research. (Photo copyrights: LinkedIn.)
AI’s Effect on Genetic Research
Genetic experiments to identify which mutations cause disease are both costly and time-consuming, Google DeepMind engineers Jun Cheng, PhD, and Žiga Avsec, PhD, wrote in a blog post. However, artificial intelligence sped up that process considerably.
“By using AI predictions, researchers can get a preview of results for thousands of proteins at a time, which can help to prioritize resources and accelerate more complex studies,” they noted.
Of all possible 71 million variants, approximately 6%, or four million, have already been seen in humans, they wrote, noting that the average person carries more than 9,000. Most are benign, “but others are pathogenic and can severely disrupt protein function,” causing diseases such as cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, and cancer.
“A missense variant is a single letter substitution in DNA that results in a different amino acid within a protein,” Cheng and Avsec wrote in the blog post. “If you think of DNA as a language, switching one letter can change a word and alter the meaning of a sentence altogether. In this case, a substitution changes which amino acid is translated, which can affect the function of a protein.”
In the Google DeepMind study, AlphaMissense predicted that 57% of the 71 million variants are “likely benign,” 32% are “likely pathogenic,” and 11% are “uncertain.”
The AlphaMissense model is adapted from an earlier model called AlphaFold which uses amino acid genetic sequences to predict the structure of proteins.
“AlphaMissense was fed data on DNA from humans and closely related primates to learn which missense mutations are common, and therefore probably benign, and which are rare and potentially harmful,” The Guardian reported. “At the same time, the program familiarized itself with the ‘language’ of proteins by studying millions of protein sequences and learning what a ‘healthy’ protein looks like.”
The model assigned each variant a score between 0 and 1 to rate the likelihood of pathogenicity [the potential for a pathogen to cause disease]. “The continuous score allows users to choose a threshold for classifying variants as pathogenic or benign that matches their accuracy requirements,” Avsec and Cheng wrote in their blog post.
However, they also acknowledged that it doesn’t indicate exactly how the variation causes disease.
The engineers cautioned that the predictions in the catalog are not intended for clinical use. Instead, they “should be interpreted with other sources of evidence.” However, “this work has the potential to improve the diagnosis of rare genetic disorders, and help discover new disease-causing genes,” they noted.
Genomics England Sees a Helpful Tool
BBC noted that AlphaMissense has been tested by Genomics England, which works with the UK’s National Health Service. “The new tool is really bringing a new perspective to the data,” Ellen Thomas, PhD, Genomics England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer, told the BBC. “It will help clinical scientists make sense of genetic data so that it is useful for patients and for their clinical teams.”
AlphaMissense is “a big step forward,” Ewan Birney, PhD, Deputy Director General of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) told the BBC. “It will help clinical researchers prioritize where to look to find areas that could cause disease.”
Other experts, however, who spoke with MIT Technology Review were less enthusiastic.
Heidi Rehm, PhD, co-director of the Program in Medical and Population Genetics at the Broad Institute, suggested that the DeepMind engineers overstated the certainty of the model’s predictions. She told the publication that she was “disappointed” that they labeled the variants as benign or pathogenic.
“The models are improving, but none are perfect, and they still don’t get you to pathogenic or not,” she said.
“Typically, experts don’t declare a mutation pathogenic until they have real-world data from patients, evidence of inheritance patterns in families, and lab tests—information that’s shared through public websites of variants such as ClinVar,” the MIT article noted.
Is AlphaMissense a Biosecurity Risk?
Although DeepMind has released its catalog of variations, MIT Technology Review notes that the lab isn’t releasing the entire AI model due to what it describes as a “biosecurity risk.”
The concern is that “bad actors” could try using it on non-human species, DeepMind said. But one anonymous expert described the restrictions “as a transparent effort to stop others from quickly deploying the model for their own uses,” the MIT article noted.
And so, genetics research takes a huge step forward thanks to Google DeepMind, artificial intelligence, and deep learning. Clinical laboratories and pathologists may soon have useful new tools that help healthcare provider diagnose diseases. Time will tell. But the developments are certain worth watching.
