MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3178944008 · doi:10.1097/wco.0000000000000978

Genetic therapy for congenital myopathies

2021· article· en· W3178944008 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Neurology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCongenital myopathyGenetic diagnosisGenetic testingMyopathyPrecision medicineHuman genetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There has been an explosion of advancement in the field of genetic therapies. The first gene-based treatments are now in clinical practice, with several additional therapeutic programs in various stages of development. Novel technologies are being developed that will further advance the breadth and success of genetic medicine.Congenital myopathies are an important group of neuromuscular disorders defined by structural changes in the muscle and characterized by severe clinical symptoms caused by muscle weakness. At present, there are no approved drug therapies for any subtype of congenital myopathy.In this review, we present an overview of genetic therapies and discuss their application to congenital myopathies. RECENT FINDINGS: Several candidate therapeutics for congenital myopathies are in the development pipeline, including ones in clinical trial. These include genetic medicines such as gene replacement therapy and antisense oligonucleotide-based gene knockdown. We highlight the programs related to genetic medicine, and also discuss congenital myopathy subtypes where genetic therapy could be applied. SUMMARY: Genetic therapies are ushering in an era of precision medicine for neurological diseases. Congenital myopathies are conditions ideally suited for genetic medicine approaches, and the first such therapies will hopefully soon be reaching congenital myopathy patients.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in NeurologySame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207