<i>CHCHD10</i> variants in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: Where is the evidence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: After the initial report of a CHCHD10 mutation in mitochondrial disease with features resembling amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), CHCHD10 mutations have been considered to be a frequent cause for ALS. However, the exact pathogenicity and clinical significance of these mutations remain unclear. Here, we aimed to determine the role of CHCHD10 mutations in ALS. METHODS: We analyzed 4,365 whole genome sequenced ALS patients and 1,832 controls from 7 different countries and examined all nonsynonymous single nucleotide variants in CHCHD10. These were tested for association with ALS, independently and in aggregate using several genetic burden tests (including sequence kernel association test [SKAT], optimal unified test [SKAT-O], and Firth logistic regression). RESULTS: We identified 3 new variants in cases, but only 1 was ALS-specific. Also, 1 control-specific mutation was identified. There was no increased burden of rare coding mutations among ALS patients compared to controls (p = 0.86, p = 0.86, and p = 0.88 for SKAT, SKAT-O, and Firth, respectively). The few carriers with potential pathogenic CHCHD10 mutations exhibited a slowly progressive ALS-like phenotype with atypical features such as myopathy and deafness. INTERPRETATION: CHCHD10 mutations seem to be a far less prevalent cause of pure ALS than previously suggested, and instead appear related to more complex phenotypes. There appears to be insufficient evidence for the pathogenicity of most previously reported variants in pure ALS. This study shows that routine testing for CHCHD10 mutations in pure ALS is not recommended and illustrates the importance of sufficient genetic and functional evidence in establishing pathogenicity of genetic variants. Ann Neurol 2018;83:110-116.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".