MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922072440 · doi:10.1042/etls20180059

Development of therapeutic genome engineering in laminin-α2-deficient congenital muscular dystrophy

2019· article· en· W2922072440 on OpenAlexafffund
Dwi U. Kemaladewi, Ronald D. Cohn

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging Topics in Life Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenMuscular Dystrophy Association
KeywordsMuscular dystrophyCongenital muscular dystrophyLamininGenetic enhancementCas9Genome editingGeneBioinformaticsMedicineGenomeBiologyCRISPRGeneticsComputational biologyExtracellular matrix

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Muscular dystrophies are a heterogeneous group of genetic muscle diseases that are often characterized by pathological findings of muscle fiber degeneration and the replacement of muscle fibers with fibrotic/connective tissues. In spite of the genetic causes of many of these conditions having been identified, curative treatments are still lacking. Recently, genome engineering technologies, including targeted gene editing and gene regulation, have emerged as attractive therapeutic tools for a variety of muscular dystrophies. This review summarizes the genome engineering strategies that are currently under preclinical evaluation for the treatment of LAMA2-deficient congenital muscular dystrophy. In particular, we focus on the applications of CRISPR/Cas9 to correct a splice site mutation in LAMA2 and to up-regulate a disease-modifying gene LAMA1. Finally, the challenges faced in the clinical translation of these strategies are discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerging Topics in Life SciencesSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207