MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966887579 · doi:10.1097/icu.0b013e32835715c9

eyeGENE(R)

2012· review· en· W1966887579 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kerry Goetz, Melissa Reeves, Santa J. Tumminia, Brian P. Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Ophthalmology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Public Health ServiceNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineGenetic testingClinical trialDiseaseCertificationPersonalized medicineGenotypingMEDLINEFamily medicineBioinformaticsPathologyGeneticsGenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Molecular genetics is revolutionizing the diagnosis and treatment of inherited eye diseases. The National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in an effort to facilitate future basic and clinical research in inherited eye disease, created The National Ophthalmic Disease Genotyping and Phenotyping Network (eyeGENE). This review describes the process and utility of the eyeGENE program as it relates to ophthalmic clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS: Over the last few years, genetic testing of specific genes associated with inherited eye conditions is becoming the standard practice. Vision research and human clinical trials relying on molecular genetic testing of individuals with inherited eye conditions are becoming more common. Eye healthcare professionals must consider the options to assist patients in obtaining genetic testing results and locating trials or studies that may have benefit. SUMMARY: eyeGENE is a DNA repository and patient registry for inherited eye diseases coupled to phenotypic descriptors and molecular genetic information. Through eyeGENE, healthcare professionals throughout the United States and Canada can obtain Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified clinical molecular genetic results on their patients. Researchers may request access to a de-identified database of phenotype and genotype information about eyeGENE participants and DNA aliquots for their research studies. eyeGENE also offers participants the option of being included in a patient registry, whereby they may be re-contacted if an approved clinical study for which they might qualify is offered.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in OphthalmologySame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207