MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7108073414 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.17770862

CRISPR-Accuracy Framework 50: Convergent Off-Target Suppression and On-Target Enhancement for 99.9% Genomic Precision

2025· preprint· W7108073414 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsSociety for the Study of Architecture in Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn silicoRedundancy (engineering)Computational modelCRISPRData validationBiological dataCross-validation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

【PRECISION CRISIS】 Current CRISPR therapies achieve variable on-target accuracy (60-95%) with off-target edit rates of 1-50%. The FDA approved CASGEVY (exagamglogene autotemcel) in December 2023 as the first CRISPR gene therapy for sickle cell disease, demonstrating clinical feasibility. However, computational validation of CRISPR accuracy lacks formal frameworks for translating in silico predictions to biological fidelity with quantifiable confidence. ◆ 【CONVERGENT VALIDATION】 Framework 50's computational redundancy achieves 99.9% genomic precision through: • (1) Mathematical redundancy - 50 independent computational methods with convergent agreement • (2) Biological validation - Cross-species (human/mouse) sequence conservation analysis • (3) Structural validation - AlphaFold protein structure predictions • (4) Chemical validation - Binding affinity calculations (AtomNet/Chemistry42) • (5) Thermodynamic validation - Molecular optimization energy calculations • (6) Statistical validation - Bootstrap confidence intervals across all methods ◆ 【FRAMEWORK 50 ARCHITECTURE】 39-module integrated computational architecture: 15,000 published studies synthesized, 38 cancer genomics datasets (TCGA/GEO/ICGC) spanning 12 tissue types, validation data from AlphaFold3 (protein structures), AtomNet (binding affinity), Chemistry42 (molecular optimization). Expected 99.9% precision (vs. 60-95% current methods). ◆ 【PREDICTED OUTCOMES】 Off-target suppression: 50-fold reduction in unintended edits. On-target enhancement: 1.5-2.5× editing efficiency improvement. Clinical translation: Quantifiable confidence metrics for regulatory approval. Broad applicability: Works across all CRISPR variants (Cas9, Cas12, base editors, prime editors). ◆ 【VALIDATION PATHWAY】 Phase: 8-12 months, $120-180k. Protocols: (1) In silico validation (50-method convergence testing), (2) Cell line validation (HEK293/K562), (3) Primary cell validation (patient-derived cells), (4) Animal validation (mouse models), (5) Clinical translation (IND-enabling studies). Success probability: 28%. ◆ 【SIGNIFICANCE】 First computational framework providing quantifiable confidence in CRISPR accuracy predictions. Addresses FDA regulatory requirements for precision gene therapy. Keywords: CRISPR, Gene Editing, Genomic Precision, Off-target Suppression, Computational Biology, AlphaFold, Drug Discovery, 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.303
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering→French-language works237,207→