MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805012591 · doi:10.19070/2332-290x-si02002

A Review of Personalised Molecular Medicine for the Treatment of Corneal Disorders

2015· review· en· W2805012591 on OpenAlexaff
Courtney DG, Abhimanyu Thakur, Nesbit MA, Moore Je, Tara Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Ophthalmology & Eye Science · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscription activator-like effector nucleaseCRISPRGenome editingCas9RNA interferenceGene silencingBiologyGeneComputational biologyGeneticsGene expressionSmall interfering RNAGenetic enhancementDNARNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the field of molecular medicine evolves greater numbers of systems are being utilised to ellicit changes in gene expression in an attempt to resolve genetic or environmental disorders. Within this review we focus on 4 of the more common forms of gene therapy utilised to alter gene expression; siRNAs, TALENs, ZFNs and CRISPR/Cas9. Short-interfering RNAs (siRNAs) are one method of transiently down regulating the expression of any target gene through the exploitation of the RNA interference pathway, often referred to as gene silencing The bacterial Type II Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)/Cas9 genome editing system is the latest method of interrupting gene expression through cleavage of target DNA. Its effectiveness at cleaving genomic DNA in mammalian cells in vitro and in vivo [2, 3], the specificity that this system exhibits [4, 5] and the relative ease with which targeted systems can be constructed Transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) are artificial systems that can be designed and constructed relatively quickly to bind practically anywhere in the genome and cleave double stranded DNA, thus interrupting the expression of any given target gene

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.410 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Ophthalmology & Eye ScienceSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207