MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2930562129 · doi:10.3390/cells8040291

Cellular and Animal Models of Striated Muscle Laminopathies

2019· review· en· W2930562129 on OpenAlexaff
Hannah A. Nicolas, Marie‐Andrée Akimenko, Frédérique Tesson

Bibliographic record

VenueCells · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNuclear Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLMNALaminNuclear laminaEmerinBiologyGeneticsPhenotypeExonCardiac muscleSkeletal muscleRNA splicingGene isoformMutationGenePenetranceProgeriaCell biologyNuclear proteinAnatomyTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lamin A/C (LMNA) gene codes for nuclear intermediate filaments constitutive of the nuclear lamina. LMNA has 12 exons and alternative splicing of exon 10 results in two major isoforms—lamins A and C. Mutations found throughout the LMNA gene cause a group of diseases collectively known as laminopathies, of which the type, diversity, penetrance and severity of phenotypes can vary from one individual to the other, even between individuals carrying the same mutation. The majority of the laminopathies affect cardiac and/or skeletal muscles. The underlying molecular mechanisms contributing to such tissue-specific phenotypes caused by mutations in a ubiquitously expressed gene are not yet well elucidated. This review will explore the different phenotypes observed in established models of striated muscle laminopathies and their respective contributions to advancing our understanding of cardiac and skeletal muscle-related laminopathies. Potential future directions for developing effective treatments for patients with lamin A/C mutation-associated cardiac and/or skeletal muscle conditions will be 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCellsSame topicNuclear Structure and FunctionFrench-language works237,207