NeuroSCORE is a genome-wide omics-based model that identifies candidate disease genes of the central nervous system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To identify candidate disease genes of central nervous system (CNS) phenotypes, we created the Neurogenetic Systematic Correlation of Omics-Related Evidence (NeuroSCORE). We identified five genome-wide metrics highly associated with CNS phenotypes to score 19,601 protein-coding genes. Genes scored one point per metric (range: 0–5), identifying 8298 scored genes (scores ≥ 1) and 1601 “high scoring” genes (scores ≥ 3). Using logistic regression, we determined the odds ratio that genes with a NeuroSCORE from 1 to 5 would be associated with known CNS-related phenotypes compared to genes that scored zero. We tested NeuroSCORE using microarray copy number variants (CNVs) in case–control cohorts and aggregate mouse model data. High scoring genes are associated with CNS phenotypes (OR = 5.5, p < 2e-16), enriched in case CNVs, and mouse ortholog genes that cause behavioral and nervous system abnormalities. We identified 1058 high scoring genes with no disease association in OMIM. Transforming the logistic regression results indicates high scoring genes have an 84–92% chance of being associated with a CNS phenotype. Top scoring genes include GRIA1, MAP4K4, SF1, TNPO2, and ZSWIM8. Finally, we interrogated CNVs in the Clinical Genome Resource, finding the majority of clinically significant CNVs contain high scoring genes. These findings can direct future research and improve molecular diagnostics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".