NARRATIVE REVIEW ON THE IMPACT OF GENE MUTATIONS IN DISEASE SUSCEPTIBILITY, PROGRESSION, AND TARGETED THERAPEUTIC APPROACHES: A NARRATIVE REVIEW.NARRATIVE REVIEW ON THE IMPACT OF GENE MUTATIONS IN DISEASE SUSCEPTIBILITY, PROGRESSION, AND TARGETED THERAPEUTIC APPROACHES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The elucidation of the human genome has fundamentally transformed our understanding of disease etiology, positioning gene mutations as central players in susceptibility, pathogenesis, and progression across a vast spectrum of human disorders. The translation of this genetic knowledge into targeted therapeutic strategies represents the cornerstone of precision medicine, heralding a new era in clinical management. Objective: This narrative review aims to synthesize the current landscape of how specific gene mutations influence disease development and progression, and to explore how these discoveries are shaping the development and application of novel, targeted therapeutic approaches. Main Discussion Points: The review thematically explores the paradigm of oncogenic mutations in driving targeted cancer therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and PARP inhibitors, while also examining the role of germline mutations in hereditary cancer syndromes. It further expands into non-oncological domains, including cardiology and neurology, highlighting the development of treatments like PCSK9 inhibitors and antisense oligonucleotides. The discussion also covers groundbreaking advanced therapies, such as gene replacement and gene editing, using examples from spinal muscular atrophy and sickle cell disease. Critical analysis is provided on the challenges of therapeutic resistance, variants of uncertain significance (VUS), and issues of health equity. Conclusion: The collective evidence firmly establishes that targeting specific gene mutations is a powerful and transformative therapeutic strategy. However, realizing the full potential of precision medicine requires overcoming significant hurdles, including resistance mechanisms, the high cost of therapies, and a lack of diversity in genetic research. Future efforts must focus on innovative trial designs, long-term safety monitoring, and equitable implementation to ensure these advances benefit all patient populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".