MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1185693396 · doi:10.1159/000438920

Pachyonychia Congenita (K16) with Unusual Features and Good Response to Acitretin

2015· article· en· W1185693396 on OpenAlexaff
Fahad Almutawa, Thusanth Thusaringam, Kevin Watters, Tenzin Gayden, Nada Jabado, Denis Sasseville

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Reports in Dermatology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSkin and Cellular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalmoplantar keratodermaAcitretinExome sequencingEpidermolytic hyperkeratosisDermatologyHyperkeratosisMedicineMissense mutationAcanthosisGenodermatosisKeratodermaPathologyGeneticsMutationBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pachyonychia congenita (PC) is a rare autosomal dominant disease whose main clinical features include hypertrophic onychodystrophy and palmoplantar keratoderma. The new classification is based on genetic variants with mutations in keratin KRT6A, KRT6B, KRT6C, KRT16, KRT17, and an unknown mutation. Here, we present a case of PC with unusual clinical and histological features and a favorable response to oral acitretin. CASE: A 49-year-old male presented with diffuse and striate palmoplantar keratoderma, thickened nails, knuckle pads, and pseudoainhum. Histology showed compact hyperkeratosis, prominent irregular acanthosis, and extensive epidermolytic hyperkeratosis, suggestive of Vörner's palmoplantar keratoderma. However, keratin 9 and 1 were not mutated, and full exome sequencing showed heterozygous missense mutation in type I keratin K16. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, epidermolytic hyperkeratosis has not been previously described with PC. Our patient had an excellent response, maintained over the last 5 years, to a low dose of acitretin. We wish to emphasize the crucial role of whole exome sequencing in establishing the correct diagnosis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Reports in DermatologySame topicSkin and Cellular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207