MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407107404 · doi:10.3390/genes16020185

Integrating Machine Learning-Based Approaches into the Design of ASO Therapies

2025· review· en· W4407107404 on OpenAlexafffund
Jamie Leckie, Toshifumi Yokota

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsMuscular Dystrophy CanadaUniversity of Alberta
FundersFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of AlbertaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMuscular Dystrophy CanadaUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsWomen and Children's Health Research InstituteChildren's Health Research InstituteAlberta InnovatesHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryComputer scienceMachine learningClinical trialMedicineExon skippingRisk analysis (engineering)Artificial intelligenceBioinformaticsBiologyRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rare diseases impose a significant burden on affected individuals, caregivers, and healthcare systems worldwide. Developing effective therapeutics for these small patient populations presents substantial challenges. Antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) have emerged as a promising therapeutic approach that targets the underlying genetic cause of disease at the RNA level. Several ASOs have gained FDA approval for the treatment of genetic conditions, including use in personalized N-of-1 trials. However, despite their potential, ASOs often exhibit limited clinical efficacy, and optimizing their design is a complex process influenced by numerous factors. Machine learning-based platforms, including eSkip-Finder and ASOptimizer, have been developed to address these challenges by predicting optimal ASO sequences and chemical modifications to enhance efficacy. eSkip-Finder focuses on exon-skipping applications, while ASOptimizer aims to optimize ASOs for RNA degradation. Preliminary in vitro results have demonstrated the promising predictive power of these platforms. However, limitations remain, including their generalizability to alternative targets and gaps in their consideration of all factors influencing ASO efficacy and safety. Continued advancements in machine learning models, alongside efforts to incorporate additional features affecting ASO efficacy and safety, hold significant promise for the field. These platforms have the potential to streamline ASO development, reduce associated costs, and improve clinical outcomes, positioning machine learning as a key tool in the future of ASO therapeutics.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenesSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207