MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172827758 · doi:10.3390/genes12070993

Functional Evaluation of Splicing for Variants of Uncertain Significance in Patients with Inherited Retinal Diseases

2021· article· en· W3172827758 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Margarita Mauro‐Herrera, John Chiang, Bojana Radojevic, Lea D. Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Eye InstituteNational Institutes of HealthFoundation Fighting Blindness
KeywordsRNA splicingRetinalGeneticsComputational biologyBiologyMedicineBioinformaticsGeneOphthalmologyRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inherited retinal diseases (IRD) comprise a heterogeneous set of clinical and genetic disorders that lead to blindness. Given the emerging opportunities in precision medicine and gene therapy, it has become increasingly important to determine whether DNA variants with uncertain significance (VUS) are responsible for patients’ IRD. This research was performed to assess the functional consequence of six VUS identified in patients with IRD. Clinical assessments included an ophthalmic examination, best-corrected visual acuity, and kinetic perimetry. Imaging was acquired with the Optos ultra-widefield camera and spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Genetic testing was performed by Molecular Vision Laboratories. VUS that were predicted to alter splicing were analyzed with a minigene assay, which revealed that VUS in the genes OPA1, CNGB1, and CLUAP1 altered spicing mechanisms. Due to emerging gene and cell therapies, these results expand the genotype-phenotype correlations for patients diagnosed with an IRD.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenesSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207