MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911142797 · doi:10.1097/mol.0000000000000581

Progress in finding pathogenic DNA copy number variations in dyslipidemia

2019· review· en· W2911142797 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael A. Iacocca, Jacqueline S. Dron, Robert A. Hegele

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Lipidology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCopy-number variationGeneticsBiologyHypertriglyceridemiaGene duplicationFamilial hypercholesterolemiaGeneDNA sequencingComputational biologyGenomeTriglycerideCholesterol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: DNA copy number variations (CNVs) are large-scale mutations that include deletions and duplications larger than 50 bp in size. In the era when single-nucleotide variations were the major focus of genetic technology and research, CNVs were largely overlooked. However, CNVs clearly underlie a substantial proportion of clinical disorders. Here, we update recent progress in identifying CNVs in dyslipidemias. RECENT FINDINGS: Until last year, only the LDLR and LPA genes were appreciated as loci within which clinically relevant CNVs contributed to familial hypercholesterolemia and variation in Lp(a) levels, respectively. Since 2017, next-generation sequencing panels have identified pathogenic CNVs in at least five more genes underlying dyslipidemias, including a PCSK9 whole-gene duplication in familial hypercholesterolemia; LPL, GPIHBP1, and APOC2 deletions in hypertriglyceridemia; and ABCA1 deletions in hypoalphalipoproteinemia. SUMMARY: CNVs are an important class of mutation that contribute to the molecular genetic heterogeneity underlying dyslipidemias. Clinical applications of next-generation sequencing technologies need to consider CNVs concurrently with familiar small-scale genetic variation, given the likely implications for improved diagnosis and treatment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

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

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in LipidologySame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207