MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CRISPR Therapeutics for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

2022· preprint· en· W4206018206 on OpenAlexafffund
Esra Erkut, Toshifumi Yokota

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsMuscular Dystrophy CanadaUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsCRISPRGenome editingDuchenne muscular dystrophyDystrophinBiologyGeneticsGeneMuscular dystrophyComputational biologyGuide RNAmdx mouseBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is an X-linked recessive neuromuscular disorder with a prevalence of approximately 1 in 3,500-5,000 males. DMD manifests as childhood-onset muscle degeneration, followed by loss of ambulation, cardiomyopathy, and death in early adulthood due to a lack of functional dystrophin protein. Out-of-frame mutations in the dystrophin gene are the most common underlying cause of DMD. Gene editing via the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) system is a promising therapeutic for DMD, as it can permanently correct DMD mutations and thus restore the reading frame, allowing for the production of functional dystrophin. The specific mechanism of gene editing can vary based on a variety of factors such as the number of cuts generated by CRISPR, the presence of an exogenous DNA template, or the current cell cycle stage. CRISPR-mediated gene editing for DMD has been tested both in vitro and in vivo, with many of these studies discussed herein. Additionally, novel modifications to the CRISPR system such as base or prime editors allow for more precise gene editing. Despite recent advances, limitations remain including delivery efficiency, off-target mutagenesis, and long-term maintenance of dystrophin. Further studies focusing on safety and accuracy of the CRISPR system are necessary prior to clinical translation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207