Type IV Collagen Variants in CKD: Performance of Computational Predictions for Identifying Pathogenic Variants
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: variants. STUDY DESIGN SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: were identified in disease cohorts, including a local focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) cohort and publicly available disease databases, in which they are categorized as pathogenic or benign based on clinical criteria. TESTS COMPARED & OUTCOMES: All rare missense variants identified in the 4 disease cohorts were subjected to in silico predictions using 12 different programs. Comparisons between the predictions were compared with: (1) variant classification (pathogenic or benign) in the cohorts and (2) functional characterization in a randomly selected smaller number (17) of pathogenic or uncertain significance variants obtained from the local FSGS cohort. RESULTS: variants correctly that were obtained from a local FSGS cohort. However, these programs also overestimated the effects of genomic variants of uncertain significance when compared with functional characterization. Each of the 12 in silico programs used yielded similar results. LIMITATIONS: Overestimation of in silico program sensitivity given that they may have been used in the categorization of variants labeled as pathogenic in disease repositories. CONCLUSIONS: variant pathogenicity, with misclassification of benign variants and variants of uncertain significance. Thus, we do not recommend in silico programs but instead recommend pursuing more objective levels of evidence suggested by medical genetics guidelines.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it