MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223548728 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abl4370

Development of iPSC-based clinical trial selection platform for patients with ultrarare diseases

2022· article· en· W4223548728 on OpenAlexaff
Glen Lester Sequiera, Abhay Srivastava, Niketa Sareen, Weiang Yan, Keshav Narayan Alagarsamy, Elika Verma, Mohamad‐Reza Aghanoori, Michel Aliani, Ashok Kumar, Paul Fernyhough, Cheryl R. Greenberg, Sanjiv Dhingra

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialMedicineInduced pluripotent stem cellClinical efficacyDrugIntensive care medicinePersonalized medicineEfficacyDrug developmentBioinformaticsInternal medicineOncologyPharmacologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A "Leap-of-Faith" approach is used to treat patients with previously unknown ultrarare pathogenic mutations, often based on evidence from patients having dissimilar but more prevalent mutations. This uncertainty reflects the need to develop personalized prescreening platforms for these patients to assess drug efficacy before considering clinical trial enrollment. In this study, we report an 18-year-old patient with ultrarare Leigh-like syndrome. This patient had previously participated in two clinical trials with unfavorable responses. We established an induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-based platform for this patient, and assessed the efficacy of a panel of drugs. The iPSC platform validated the safety and efficacy of the screened drugs. The efficacy of three of the screened drugs was also investigated in the patient. After 3 years of treatment, the drugs were effective in shifting the metabolic profile of this patient toward healthy control. Therefore, this personalized iPSC-based platform can act as a prescreening tool to help in decision-making with respect to patient's participation in future clinical trials.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations30
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207