MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396999067 · doi:10.1681/asn.20203110s1526d

In Silico Prediction Performance for Type IV Collagen Variants

2020· article· en· W4396999067 on OpenAlexaff
Cole Shulman, Emerald Liang, Misato Kamura, Khalil Udwan, Tony Yao, Daniel Cattran, Heather N. Reich, Michelle Hladunewich, York Pei, Andrew D. Paterson, Mary Ann Suico, Hirofumi Kai, Moumita Barua

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCollagen: Extraction and Characterization
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn silicoComputational biologyChemistryBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Advances in genomics technology and knowledge has led to increased sequencing for diagnosis, including in kidney disease. However, sequencing can reveal rare missense variants for which the relationship to disease is unclear. To address this need, in silico programs have been developed to assign variant categorization. Recently, pathogenic variants in COL4A3/A4/A5 have been reported to account for a significant minority of chronic kidney disease. Here we evaluate the performance of in silico programs for type IV collagen variants. Methods: Rare COL4A3/A4/A5 missense variants were identified in an FSGS cohort, unscreened controls (gnomAD) and disease databases (ClinVAR, ARUP, LOVD). Comparisons between in silico predictions, disease database classifications and functional characterization were performed. Results: In silico predictions and functional characterization classified all 9 definitely pathogenic COL4A3/A4/A5 variants in the FSGS cohort correctly. In silico predictions correctly classified the majority (93-97%) of definitely pathogenic COL4A3/A4/A5 variants in ClinVAR, ARUP and LOVD. However, a significant proportion of benign variants were predicted as pathogenic. Thirty-five percent of COL4A3/A4/A5 missense variants obtained from gnomAD were also predicted deleterious. In silico predictions tended to overestimate the effects of COL4A variants of uncertain significance (VUS) when compared to functional characterization. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that in silico programs are sensitive but not specific to assign COL4A3/A4/A5 variant pathogenicity, with misclassification of benign variants. Limitations of our computational work include overestimation of in silico program sensitivity given that they have likely been used in the categorization of variants labelled as pathogenic in disease databases; and the lack of clinical data to correlate rare variants in gnomAD controls. Funding: Private Foundation Support, Government Support - Non-U.S.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicCollagen: Extraction and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207