MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1490256361 · doi:10.1002/mus.23666

Dysferlin aggregation in limb‐girdle muscular dystrophy type 2B/myoshi myopathy necessitates mutational screen for diagnosis

2012· article· en· W1490256361 on OpenAlexaff
Mats I. Nilsson, Marissa Laureano, Munim Saeed, Mark A. Tarnopolsky

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysferlinLimb-girdle muscular dystrophyMuscular dystrophyMyopathyPhenotypeMutationBiologyGeneticsPathologyMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Diagnosis of the limb-girdle muscular dystrophies (LGMDs) has been facilitated by the use of immunofluorescence microscopy, Western blot analysis, and rapid genetic testing. METHODS: We identified 7 patients with LGMD2B or Miyoshi myopathy (MM) phenotypes and performed detailed history, physical examination, and mutation analyses of genomic DNA. RESULTS: Ten disease-causing variants of the dysferlin gene (DYSF) were detected, 4 of which were novel and predicted to be pathogenic (IVS33+9G>T, c.1343T>C, c.4747T>G, and c.5066dupC). Two of these mutations (c.1343T>C and IVS33+9G>T) were associated with a reduction in sarcolemmal dysferlin expression, despite increased total mRNA and protein in mixed muscle homogenates, due to a pathological retention of the mutated polypeptide in the cytoplasm. CONCLUSIONS: Considering that protein-based assays may yield false negative test results and that dysferlin aggregation may be present in other LGMDs, mutational screening is necessary for specific diagnosis in primary dysferlinopathy patients exhibiting this phenotype.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207