Proteomic Profiling Towards a Better Understanding of Genetic Based Muscular Diseases: The Current Picture and a Look to the Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proteomics accelerates diagnosis and research of muscular diseases by enabling the robust analysis of proteins relevant for the manifestation of neuromuscular diseases in the following aspects: (i) evaluation of the effect of genetic variants on the corresponding protein, (ii) prediction of the underlying genetic defect based on the proteomic signature of muscle biopsies, (iii) analysis of pathophysiologies underlying different entities of muscular diseases, key for the definition of new intervention concepts, and (iv) patient stratification according to biochemical fingerprints as well as (v) monitoring the success of therapeutic interventions. This review presents-also through exemplary case studies-the various advantages of mass proteomics in the investigation of genetic muscle diseases, discusses technical limitations, and provides an outlook on possible future application concepts. Hence, proteomics is an excellent large-scale analytical tool for the diagnostic workup of (hereditary) muscle diseases and warrants systematic profiling of underlying pathophysiological processes. The steady development may allow to overcome existing limitations including a quenched dynamic range and quantification of different protein isoforms. Future directions may include targeted proteomics in diagnostic settings using not only muscle biopsies but also liquid biopsies to address the need for minimally invasive procedures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".