MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Precision Medicine Approaches for Infantile-Onset Developmental and Epileptic Encephalopathies

2021· article· en· W3201797647 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth A. Myers, Ingrid E. Scheffer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTuberous sclerosisEpilepsyPrecision medicineMedicineEncephalopathyPediatricsIntellectual disabilityBioinformaticsPsychiatryPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epilepsy is an etiologically heterogeneous condition; however, genetic factors are thought to play a role in most patients. For those with infantile-onset developmental and epileptic encephalopathy (DEE), a genetic diagnosis is now obtained in more than 50% of patients. There is considerable motivation to utilize these molecular diagnostic data to help guide treatment, as children with DEEs often have drug-resistant seizures as well as developmental impairment related to cerebral epileptiform activity. Precision medicine approaches have the potential to dramatically improve the quality of life for these children and their families. At present, treatment can be targeted for patients with diagnoses in many genetic causes of infantile-onset DEE, including genes encoding sodium or potassium channel subunits, tuberous sclerosis, and congenital metabolic diseases. Precision medicine may refer to more intelligent choices of conventional antiseizure medications, repurposed agents previously used for other indications, novel compounds, enzyme replacement, or gene therapy approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annual Review of Pharmacology and ToxicologySame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207