MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912480611

Targeted next generation sequencing reveals genetic defects underlying inherited retinal disease in Iranian families.

2019· article· en· W2912480611 on OpenAlexaff
Naeimeh Tayebi, Oyediran Akinrinade, Muhammad Imran Khan, Arash Hejazifar, Alireza Dehghani, Frans P.M. Cremers, Mohammadreza Akhlaghi

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbandRetinitis pigmentosaGeneticsBiologyABCA4Stargardt diseaseGenetic heterogeneityExome sequencingDNA sequencingRetinal DisorderSanger sequencingGeneCompound heterozygosityRetinalMutationPhenotype
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) are clinically and genetically heterogeneous showing progressive retinal cell death which results in vision loss. IRDs include a wide spectrum of disorders, such as retinitis pigmentosa (RP), Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA), cone-rod dystrophy (CRD), and Stargardt disease (STGD1). Methods: In this study, we performed targeted next-generation sequencing based on molecular inversion probes (MIPs) that allowed the sequence analysis of 108 IRD-associated genes in 50 Iranian IRD probands. Results: The sequencing and variant filtering led to the identification of putative pathogenic variants in 36 out of 50 (72%) probands. Among 36 unique variants, we identified 20 novel variants in 15 genes. Four out of 36 probands carry compound heterozygous variants, and 32 probands carry homozygous variants. Conclusions: Employing a cost-effective targeted next-generation sequencing procedure, we identified the genetic causes of different retinal disorders in the majority of Iranian families in this study.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.232
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207