The TREAT-NMD DMD Global Database: Analysis of More than 7,000 Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Mutations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analyzing the type and frequency of patient-specific mutations that give rise to Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is an invaluable tool for diagnostics, basic scientific research, trial planning, and improved clinical care. Locus-specific databases allow for the collection, organization, storage, and analysis of genetic variants of disease. Here, we describe the development and analysis of the TREAT-NMD DMD Global database (http://umd.be/TREAT_DMD/). We analyzed genetic data for 7,149 DMD mutations held within the database. A total of 5,682 large mutations were observed (80% of total mutations), of which 4,894 (86%) were deletions (1 exon or larger) and 784 (14%) were duplications (1 exon or larger). There were 1,445 small mutations (smaller than 1 exon, 20% of all mutations), of which 358 (25%) were small deletions and 132 (9%) small insertions and 199 (14%) affected the splice sites. Point mutations totalled 756 (52% of small mutations) with 726 (50%) nonsense mutations and 30 (2%) missense mutations. Finally, 22 (0.3%) mid-intronic mutations were observed. In addition, mutations were identified within the database that would potentially benefit from novel genetic therapies for DMD including stop codon read-through therapies (10% of total mutations) and exon skipping therapy (80% of deletions and 55% of total mutations).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".