MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149788223 · doi:10.1080/13816810802216480

Successful<i>RPE65</i>Gene Replacement and Improved Visual Function in Humans

2008· editorial· en· W2149788223 on OpenAlexaff
Robert K. Koenekoop

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic Genetics · 2008
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill Genome Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRPE65Function (biology)BiologyMedicineOptometryOphthalmologyGeneticsPsychologyGeneGenetic enhancement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA) is a group of severe autosomal recessive retinal dystrophies unified by the onset of blindness at birth and absence of ERG signals. Mutations in fourteen genes are currently associated with LCA, accounting for approximately 60% of patients. LCA genes encode retinal proteins that participate in a variety of significant retinal pathways ranging from photoreceptor development to replenishing vitamin A in the retinoid cycle. In some of the genetic subtypes of LCA (e.g. RPE65), viable photoreceptors and a relatively intact retina have been discovered. Consequently, successful photoreceptor and visual rescue have been achieved in mice and canine models of LCA. Two research groups, one in Philadelphia, USA (Maguire et al.) another in London, England (Bainbridge et al.) recently tested RPE65 replacement in two human trials with a total of six LCA patients. Remarkably, visual improvements were documented by ETDRS visual acuity measurements, pupillometry, nystagmus frequency, visual field measures, perimetry and an obstacle course. There were no local, or systemic side effects, nor improvements in ERG measures. These spectacular results will now stimulate further investigations of younger patients, higher dosages, and clinically or genetically related retinal disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmic GeneticsSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207