A Semantic Model of Genetic Evidence: A Step Toward Bridging the Basic-Science-Clinic Gap

Disease severity classification for genetic conditions is subjective and labor-intensive, creating bottlenecks in genomic screening, where commercial panels vary widely in size and overlap. We developed an autonomous AI agent integrating Reasoning and Acting (ReAct) with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to classify 10,211 Human Phenotype Ontology terms. It uses American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG)-endorsed severity guidelines and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) quality-of-life criteria to retrieve PubMed literature, generate interpretable reasoning chains, and independently verify claims. At the phenotype level, using expert-curated cohorts, the agent achieved 93.55% accuracy (MCC 0.9237) with 82.6% to 91.4% of claims supported by direct evidence or valid inferences. Gene-level severity was aggregated across 8,738 pairs, identifying 3,283 autosomal recessive pairs with severe or profound presentations. External validation showed 95.2% concordance with Mackenzie's Mission gene list. This system enables standardized panel design by providing reliable, automated classification supported by direct evidence.

Background: Regulatory frameworks for AI in healthcare, including the EU AI Act and FDA guidance on AI/ML-based medical devices, require clinical decision support to demonstrate not only accuracy but auditability. Existing formal languages for clinical logic validate syntactic and structural correctness but not whether decision rules use epistemologically appropriate evidence. Methods: Drawing on design-by-contract principles, we introduce meta-predicates -- predicates about predicates -- for asserting epistemological constraints on clinical decision rules expressed in a DSL. An epistemological type system classifies annotations along four dimensions: purpose, knowledge domain, scale, and method of acquisition. Meta-predicates assert which evidence types are permissible in any given rule. The framework is instantiated in AnFiSA, an open-source platform for genetic variant curation, and demonstrated using the Brigham Genomics Medicine protocol on 5.6 million variants from the Genome in a Bottle benchmark. Results: Decision trees used in variant interpretation can be reformulated as unate cascades, enabling per-variant audit trails that identify which rule classified each variant and why. Meta-predicate validation catches epistemological errors before deployment, whether rules are human-written or AI-generated. The approach complements post-hoc methods such as LIME and SHAP: where explanation reveals what evidence was used after the fact, meta-predicates constrain what evidence may be used before deployment, while preserving human readability. Conclusions: Meta-predicate validation is a step toward demonstrating not only that decisions are accurate but that they rest on appropriate evidence in ways that can be independently audited. While demonstrated in genomics, the approach generalises to any domain requiring auditable decision logic.

Frontier large language models generate clinically accurate outputs, but their citations are often fabricated. We term this the Provenance Gap. We tested five frontier LLMs across 36 clinician-validated scenarios for three rare neuromuscular disease pairs. No model produced a clinically relevant PubMed identifier without prompting. When explicitly asked to cite, the best model achieved 15.3% relevant PMIDs; the majority resolved to real publications in unrelated fields. We present HEG-TKG (Hierarchical Evidence-Grounded Temporal Knowledge Graphs), a system that grounds clinical claims in temporal knowledge graphs built from 4,512 PubMed records and curated sources with quality-tier stratification and 1,280 disease-trajectory milestones. In a controlled three-arm comparison using the same synthesis model, HEG-TKG matches baseline clinical feature coverage while achieving 100% evidence verifiability with 203 inline citations. Guideline-RAG, given overlapping source documents as raw text, produces zero verifiable citations. LLM judges cannot distinguish fabricated from verified citations without PubMed audit data. Independent clinician evaluation confirms the verifiability advantage (Cohen's d = 1.81, p < 0.001) with no degradation on safety or completeness. A counterfactual experiment shows 80% resistance to injected clinical errors with 100% detectability via citation trace. The system deploys on-premise via open-source models so patient data never leaves institutional infrastructure.