Deciphering conundrums of adeno-associated virus liver-directed gene therapy: focus on hemophilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adeno-associated virus gene therapy has been the subject of intensive investigation for monogenic disease gene addition therapy for more than 25 years, yet few therapies have been approved by regulatory agencies. Most have not progressed beyond phase 1/2 due to toxicity, lack of efficacy, or both. The liver is a natural target for adeno-associated virus since most serotypes have a high degree of tropism for hepatocytes due to cell surface receptors for the virus and the unique liver sinusoidal geometry facilitating high volumes of blood contact with hepatocyte cell surfaces. Recessive monogenic diseases such as hemophilia represent promising targets since the defective proteins are often synthesized in the liver and secreted into the circulation, making them easy to measure, and many do not require precise regulation. Yet, despite initiation of many disease-specific clinical trials, therapeutic windows are often nonexistent, resulting in excess toxicity and insufficient efficacy. Iterative progress built on these attempts is best illustrated by hemophilia, with the first regulatory approvals for factor IX and factor VIII gene therapies eventually achieved 25 years after the first gene therapy studies in humans. Although successful gene transfer may result in the production of sufficient transgenic protein to modify the disease, many emerging questions on durability, predictability, reliability, and variability of response have not been answered. The underlying biology accounting for these heterogeneous responses and the interplay between host and virus is the subject of intense investigation and the subject of this review.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".