MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406559961 · doi:10.1016/j.omtn.2025.102457

Advanced delivery systems for gene editing: A comprehensive review from the GenE-HumDi COST Action Working Group

2025· review· en· W4406559961 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Therapy — Nucleic Acids · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIJunta de AndalucíaNovo Nordisk FondenMinistarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog RazvojaEuropean Research CouncilMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y UniversidadesAlexion PharmaceuticalsJavna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RSCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónNovo NordiskH. Lundbeck A/SIkerbasque, Basque Foundation for ScienceLundbeckfondenEuropean Cooperation in Science and TechnologyInnovationsfondenConsejería de Salud y Consumo, Junta de AndalucíaEusko Jaurlaritza
KeywordsGenome editingComputational biologyComputer scienceGene deliveryGenomeGenetic enhancementBiologyAction (physics)GeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

approaches, often representing a barrier to achieving the desired editing efficiency and safety. In this review, authored by members of the GenE-HumDi European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action, we described the plethora of delivery systems available for genome-editing components, including viral and non-viral systems, highlighting their advantages, limitations, and potential application in a clinical setting.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.309 · 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