Targeted copy number variant identification across the neurodegenerative disease spectrum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although genetic factors are known to contribute to neurodegenerative disease susceptibility, there remains a large amount of heritability unaccounted for across the diagnoses. Copy number variants (CNVs) contribute to these phenotypes, but their presence and influence on disease state remains relatively understudied. METHODS: Here, we applied a depth of coverage approach to detect CNVs in 80 genes previously associated with neurodegenerative disease within participants of the Ontario Neurodegenerative Disease Research Initiative (n = 519). RESULTS: In total, we identified and validated four CNVs in the cohort, including: (1) a heterozygous deletion of exon 5 in OPTN in an Alzheimer's disease participant; (2) a duplication of exons 1-5 in PARK7 in an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis participant; (3) a duplication of >3 Mb, which encompassed ABCC6, in a cerebrovascular disease (CVD) participant; and (4) a duplication of exons 7-11 in SAMHD1 in a mild cognitive impairment participant. We also identified 43 additional CNVs that may be candidates for future replication studies. CONCLUSION: The identification of the CNVs suggests a portion of the apparent missing heritability of the phenotypes may be due to these structural variants, and their assessment is imperative for a thorough understanding of the genetic spectrum of neurodegeneration.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".