Do common <i>in silico</i> tools predict the clinical consequences of amino‐acid substitutions in the CFTR gene?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational methods are used to predict the molecular consequences of amino-acid substitutions on the basis of evolutionary conservation or protein structure, but their utility in clinical diagnosis or prediction of disease outcome has not been well validated. We evaluated three popular computer programs, namely, PANTHER, SIFT and PolyPhen, by comparing the predicted clinical outcomes for a group of known CFTR missense mutations against the diagnosis of cystic fibrosis (CF) and clinical manifestations in cohorts of subjects with CF-disease and CFTR-related disorders carrying these mutations. Owing to poor specificity, none of tools reliably distinguished between individual mutations that confer CF disease from mutations found in subjects with a CFTR-related disorder or no disease. Prediction scores for CFTR mutations derived from PANTHER showed a significant overall statistical correlation with the spectrum of disease severity associated with mutations in the CFTR gene. In contrast, PolyPhen- and SIFT-derived scores only showed significant differences between CF-causing and non-CF variants. Current computational methods are not recommended for establishing or excluding a CF diagnosis, notably as a newborn screening strategy or in patients with equivocal test results.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".