Phenotypic screening models for rapid diagnosis of genetic variants and discovery of personalized therapeutics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precision medicine strives for highly individualized treatments for disease under the notion that each individual's unique genetic makeup and environmental exposures imprints upon them not only a disposition to illness, but also an optimal therapeutic approach. In the realm of rare disorders, genetic predisposition is often the predominant mechanism driving disease presentation. For such, mostly, monogenic disorders, a causal gene to phenotype association is likely. As a result, it becomes important to query the patient's genome for the presence of pathogenic variations that are likely to cause the disease. Determining whether a variant is pathogenic or not is critical to these analyses and can be challenging, as many disease-causing variants are novel and, ergo, have no available functional data to help categorize them. This problem is exacerbated by the need for rapid evaluation of pathogenicity, since many genetic diseases present in young children who will experience increased morbidity and mortality without rapid diagnosis and therapeutics. Here, we discuss the utility of animal models, with a focus mainly on C. elegans, as a contrast to tissue culture and in silico approaches, with emphasis on how these systems are used in determining pathogenicity of variants with uncertain significance and then used to screen for novel therapeutics.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".