MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390196053 · doi:10.1002/alz.078497

Structural variants in Lewy body dementia and frontotemporal dementia spectrum

2023· article· en· W4390196053 on OpenAlexaff
Karri Kaivola, Ruth Chia, Jinhui Ding, Memoona Rasheed, Masashi Fujita, Vilas Menon, Ronald L. Walton, Ryan L. Collins, Kimberley J. Billingsley, Harrison Brand, Michael E. Talkowski, Xuefang Zhao, Ramita Dewan, Anindita Ray, Sultana Solaiman, Pilar Álvarez Jerez, Laksh Malik, Ted M. Dawson, Liana S. Rosenthal, Marilyn S. Albert, Olga Pletnikova, Juan C. Troncoso, Mario Masellis, Julia Keith, Sandra E. Black, Luigi Ferrucci, Susan M. Resnick, Toshiko Tanaka, Eric J. Topol, Ali Torkamani, Pentti J. Tienari, Tatiana Foroud, Bernardino Ghetti, John E. Landers, Mina Ryten, Huw R. Morris, John Hardy, Letizia Mazzini, Sandra D’Alfonso, Cristina Moglia, Andrea Calvo, Geidy E. Serrano, Thomas G. Beach, Tanis J. Ferman, Neill R. Graff‐Radford, Bradley F. Boeve, Zbigniew K. Wszołek, Dennis W. Dickson, Adriano Chiò, David A. Bennett, Philip L. De Jager, Owen A. Ross, Clifton L. Dalgard, J. Raphael Gibbs, Bryan J. Traynor, Sonja W. Scholz

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontotemporal dementiaC9orf72DementiaLewy bodyGeneticsStructural variationAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisComputational biologyBiologyMedicineDiseaseGenomeGeneInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Structural variants range from simple loss or gain of genetic material to complex events that restructure entire chromosomes. This heterogeneity coupled with variant size greater than sequencing read‐length makes structural variant mapping from short‐read sequencing data difficult and error‐prone. Consequently, the role of structural variants is poorly explored in many phenotypes, including dementia. Method We used the GATK‐SV pipeline that combines four external structural variant mapping algorithms with machine‐learning to build high‐quality consensus structural variant calls. We applied GATK‐SV to short‐read whole‐genome sequencing data of 2,601 frontotemporal dementia‐amyotrophic lateral sclerosis spectrum (FTD/ALS) patients, 2,612 Lewy body dementia (LBD) patients, and 4,132 neurologically unaffected participants. Result After stringent quality‐control, we performed genome‐wide association studies on 2,307 ALS/FTD patients versus 3,677 controls with 4,699 common structural variants and 2,355 LBD patients versus 3,700 controls with 4,889 common structural variants. In the FTD/ALS cohort, we identified well‐known risk variants at the C9orf72 (p‐value = 4.99×10‐18, OR = 14.47, 95% CI = 7.90–26.49) and MAPT loci (p‐value = 3.48×10‐6, OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.68–0.86) corroborating the ability of our pipeline to identify disease‐associated structural variants. Moreover, we discovered, replicated, and validated TPCN1 as a novel risk locus for LBD (p‐value = 9.18×10‐6, OR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.22–1.67). Further, we identified rare exonic variants with known pathogenic or likely pathogenic effects, such as an SNCA gene duplication in LBD and a deletion of exons 1 and 2 in CHCHD10 in FTD/ALS. We additionally observed structural variants in regulatory regions, e.g. a deletion of a key PSEN2 enhancer, which resulted in an approximate 0.70 fold‐change in PSEN2 expression in LBD. Finally, we built an interactive web app where structural variants can be visualized and explored ( https://ndru-ndrs-lng-nih.shinyapps.io/non_ad_dementias_sv_app/ ). Conclusion Common and rare structural variants play a role in LBD and FTD/ALS. Our structural variant resource is publicly available and can be used to further explore the role of structural variants in LBD and FTD/ALS.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research→French-language works237,207→