MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788529035 · doi:10.1534/genetics.117.300124

How Surrogate and Chemical Genetics in Model Organisms Can Suggest Therapies for Human Genetic Diseases

2018· review· en· W2788529035 on OpenAlexafffund
Katherine A Strynatka, Michelle C Gurrola-Gal, Jason N. Berman, Christopher R. McMaster

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchTerry Fox Research InstituteGenome Canada
KeywordsBiologyModel organismDiseaseGeneticsZebrafishOrganismComputational biologyGenomeGeneMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic diseases are both inherited and acquired. Many genetic diseases fall under the paradigm of orphan diseases, a disease found in < 1 in 2000 persons. With rapid and cost-effective genome sequencing becoming the norm, many causal mutations for genetic diseases are being rapidly determined. In this regard, model organisms are playing an important role in validating if specific mutations identified in patients drive the observed phenotype. An emerging challenge for model organism researchers is the application of genetic and chemical genetic platforms to discover drug targets and drugs/drug-like molecules for potential treatment options for patients with genetic disease. This review provides an overview of how model organisms have contributed to our understanding of genetic disease, with a focus on the roles of yeast and zebrafish in gene discovery and the identification of compounds that could potentially treat human genetic diseases.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.307 · 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
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

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207