Clinical testing panels for ALS: global distribution, consistency, and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: In 2021, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) spectrum disorders Gene Curation Expert Panel (GCEP) was established to evaluate the strength of evidence for genes previously reported to be associated with ALS. Through this endeavor, we will provide standardized guidance to laboratories on which genes should be included in clinical genetic testing panels for ALS. In this manuscript, we aimed to assess the heterogeneity in the current global landscape of clinical genetic testing for ALS. Methods: We reviewed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Genetic Testing Registry (GTR) and members of the ALS GCEP to source frequently used testing panels and compare the genes included on the tests. Results: 14 clinical panels specific to ALS from 14 laboratories covered 4 to 54 genes. All panels report on ANG, SOD1, TARDBP, and VAPB; 50% included or offered the option of including C9orf72 hexanucleotide repeat expansion (HRE) analysis. Of the 91 genes included in at least one of the panels, 40 (44.0%) were included on only a single panel. We could not find a direct link to ALS in the literature for 14 (15.4%) included genes. Conclusions: The variability across the surveyed clinical genetic panels is concerning due to the possibility of reduced diagnostic yields in clinical practice and risk of a missed diagnoses for patients. Our results highlight the necessity for consensus regarding the appropriateness of gene inclusions in clinical genetic ALS tests to improve its application for patients living with ALS and their families.
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 | 0.232 | 0.273 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".