Molecular Diagnosis of Pompe Disease in the Genomic Era: Correlation with Acid Alpha-Glucosidase Activity in Dried Blood Spots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measurement of alpha-glucosidase activity on dried blood spots has been the main method to screen for Pompe disease, but a paradigm shift has been observed in recent years with the incorporation of gene panels and exome sequencing in molecular diagnostic laboratories. An 89-gene panel has been available to Canadian physicians since 2017 and was analyzed in 2030 patients with a suspected muscle disease. Acid alpha-glucosidase activity was measured in parallel in dried blood spots from 1430 patients. Pompe disease was diagnosed in 14 patients, representing 0.69% of our cohort. In 7 other patients, low enzyme activities overlapping those of Pompe disease cases were attributable to the presence of pseudodeficiency alleles. Only two other patients had enzymatic activity in the Pompe disease range, and a single heterozygous pathogenic variant was identified. It is possible that a second variant could have been missed; we suggest that RNA analysis should be considered in such cases. With gene panel testing increasingly being performed as a first-tier analysis of patients with suspected muscle disorders, our study supports the relevance of performing reflex enzymatic activity assay in selected patients, such as those with a single GAA variant identified and those in whom the observed genotype is of uncertain clinical significance.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".