Comprehensive multi-cohort transcriptional meta-analysis of muscle diseases identifies a signature of disease severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Muscle diseases share common pathological features suggesting common underlying mechanisms. We hypothesized there is a common set of genes dysregulated across muscle diseases compared to healthy muscle and that these genes correlate with severity of muscle disease. We performed meta-analysis of transcriptional profiles of muscle biopsies from human muscle diseases and healthy controls. Studies obtained from public microarray repositories fulfilling quality criteria were divided into six categories: (i) immobility, (ii) inflammatory myopathies, (iii) intensive care unit (ICU) acquired weakness (ICUAW), (iv) congenital muscle diseases, (v) chronic systemic diseases, (vi) motor neuron disease. Patient cohorts were separated in discovery and validation cohorts retaining roughly equal proportions of samples for the disease categories. To remove bias towards a specific muscle disease category we repeated the meta-analysis five times by removing data sets corresponding to one muscle disease class at a time in a “leave-one-disease-out” analysis. We used 636 muscle tissue samples from 30 independent cohorts to identify a 52 gene signature (36 up-regulated and 16 down-regulated genes). We validated the discriminatory power of this signature in 657 muscle biopsies from 12 additional patient cohorts encompassing five categories of muscle diseases with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.91, 83% sensitivity, and 85.3% specificity. The expression score of the gene signature inversely correlated with quadriceps muscle mass (r = −0.50, p-value = 0.011) in ICUAW and shoulder abduction strength (r = −0.77, p-value = 0.014) in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The signature also positively correlated with histologic assessment of muscle atrophy in ALS (r = 0.88, p-value = 1.62 × 10–3) and fibrosis in muscular dystrophy (Jonckheere trend test p-value = 4.45 × 10–9). Our results identify a conserved transcriptional signature associated with clinical and histologic muscle disease severity. Several genes in this conserved signature have not been previously associated with muscle disease severity.
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 | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".