Clinical validity of congenital myopathy genes determined by the ClinGen Congenital Myopathies Expert Panel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Congenital myopathies are a group of neuromuscular disorders that typically present at birth or early childhood with hypotonia and non-progressive or slowly progressive muscle weakness. They are classically subclassified by characteristic structural changes and histopathological findings in skeletal muscle. Variants in over 40 genes have been described to date in patients with various forms of congenital myopathy with overlapping phenotypic and histological features, which poses a challenge for laboratories and clinicians in interpreting genetic findings. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the evidence supporting each gene-disease relationship and provide an expert-reviewed classification for the clinical validity of genes involved in congenital myopathies. METHODS: The ClinGen Neurological Disorders Clinical Domain Working Group assembled the Congenital Myopathies Gene Curation Expert Panel (CongenMyopathy-GCEP), a group of clinicians and geneticists with expertise in congenital myopathies tasked to perform evidence-based curation of 50 gene-disease relationships using the ClinGen semiquantitative framework to assign clinical validity. RESULTS: Our curation effort resulted in 35 (70%) Definitive, eight (16%) Moderate, six (12%) Limited, and one (2%) Disputed disease relationship classifications. The summary of each curation is made publicly available on the ClinGen website. CONCLUSIONS: Expert-reviewed assignment of gene-disease relationships by the CongenMyopathy-GCEP facilitates accurate molecular diagnoses for congenital myopathies and can allow genetic testing to focus on genes with a validated role in disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".