MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914376849 · doi:10.3390/brainsci9020032

The Application of Adeno-Associated Viral Vector Gene Therapy to the Treatment of Fragile X Syndrome

2019· review· en· W2914376849 on OpenAlexaff
David R. Hampson, Alexander W.M. Hooper, Yosuke Niibori

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Sciences · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFragile X syndromeGenetic enhancementAdeno-associated virusLEAPSDiseaseClinical trialFragile xVector (molecular biology)MedicineBiologyBioinformaticsNeuroscienceGeneGeneticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Viral vector-mediated gene therapy has grown by leaps and bounds over the past several years. Although the reasons for this progress are varied, a deeper understanding of the basic biology of the viruses, the identification of new and improved versions of viral vectors, and simply the vast experience gained by extensive testing in both animal models of disease and in clinical trials, have been key factors. Several studies have investigated the efficacy of adeno-associated viral (AAV) vectors in the mouse model of fragile X syndrome where AAVs have been used to express fragile X mental retardation protein (FMRP), which is missing or highly reduced in the disorder. These studies have demonstrated a range of efficacies in different tests from full correction, to partial rescue, to no effect. Here we provide a backdrop of recent advances in AAV gene therapy as applied to central nervous system disorders, outline the salient features of the fragile X studies, and discuss several key issues for moving forward. Collectively, the findings to date from the mouse studies on fragile X syndrome, and data from clinical trials testing AAVs in other neurological conditions, indicate that AAV-mediated gene therapy could be a viable strategy for treating fragile X syndrome.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations39
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain SciencesSame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207