MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307717490 · doi:10.1172/jci163670

Epigenetics in glaucoma: a link between DNA methylation and neurodegeneration

2022· letter· en· W4307717490 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Wendy W. Liu, Yang Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Investigation · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Eye InstituteSchool of Medicine, Stanford UniversityNational Institutes of HealthChildren's Health Research InstituteU.S. Department of Veterans AffairsAmerican Glaucoma SocietyResearch to Prevent Blindness
KeywordsOptic nerveEpigeneticsNeurodegenerationHaploinsufficiencyBiologyGlaucomaNormal tension glaucomaRetinal degenerationGeneticsDNA methylationProtein arginine methyltransferase 5MethyltransferaseHistoneCell biologyNeuroscienceMethylationMedicineGenePathologyOpen angle glaucomaPhenotypeGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Normal-tension glaucoma is a form of optic nerve degeneration that is characterized by loss of retinal ganglion cells independent of eye pressure elevation. In this issue of the JCI, Pan et al. report the discovery in a Japanese family of a mutation in the METTL23 gene, which encodes a histone arginine methyltransferase that causes normal-pressure glaucoma in haploinsufficiency. Inherited as an autosomal dominant condition, METTL23 deficiency revealed an important function in the regulation of pS2 and the downstream NF-κB signaling pathway, which has previously been linked to glaucomatous optic nerve degeneration. These findings are the first direct link between defective epigenetic regulatory machinery and genetic forms of optic nerve degeneration.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0100.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical InvestigationSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207