Molecular diagnosis of muscular diseases in outpatient clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic yield of an 89-gene panel in a large cohort of patients with suspected muscle disorders and to compare the diagnostic yield of gene panel and exome sequencing approaches. METHODS: We tested 1,236 patients from outpatient clinics across Canada using a gene panel and performed exome sequencing for 46 other patients with sequential analysis of 89 genes followed by all mendelian genes. Sequencing and analysis were performed in patients with muscle weakness or symptoms suggestive of a muscle disorder and showing at least 1 supporting clinical laboratory. RESULTS: ) explained about half of all cases. Cardiac anomalies, positive family history, age <60 years, and creatine kinase >1,000 IU/L were all associated with increased diagnostic yield. Exome sequencing identified a diagnosis in 10 (21.7%) of the 46 patients tested. Among these, 3 were attributed to genes not included in the 89-gene panel. Despite differences in median coverage, only 1 of the 187 diagnoses that were identified on gene panel in the 1,236 patients could have been potentially missed if exome sequencing had been performed instead. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the use of gene panel testing in patients with suspected muscle disorders from outpatient clinics. It also shows that exome sequencing has a low risk of missing diagnoses compared with gene panel, while potentially increasing the diagnostic yield of patients with muscle disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".