MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1491052543 · doi:10.1002/pd.4518

Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva: bilateral hallux valgus on ultrasound a clue for the first prenatal diagnosis for this condition—clinical report and review of the literature

2014· review· en· W1491052543 on OpenAlexaff
Catalina Maftei, Françoise Rypens, Isabelle Thiffault, Johanne Dubé, Anne‐Marie Laberge, Emmanuelle Lemyre

Bibliographic record

VenuePrenatal Diagnosis · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeterotopic Ossification and Related Conditions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibrodysplasia ossificans progressivaMedicinePrenatal diagnosisValgusOssificationMyositis ossificansHeterotopic ossificationGenetic counselingDifferential diagnosisSurgeryFetusPediatricsPathologyPregnancyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What's already known about this topic? Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) (MIM: 135100) is a very rare autosomal dominant condition with a prevalence of 1:2,000,000. The clinical picture is characterized by congenital malformations of the great toes and progressive disabling heterotopic ossification. The genetic explanation is an activating mutation in the ACVR1 , a bone morphogenetic protein type I receptor, which promotes osteogenic differentiation of connective tissue progenitor cells. What does this study add? We present the first case of prenatal diagnosis of FOP on ultrasound findings. Fetal bilateral hallux valgus, seen on second‐trimester ultrasound prompted the clinicians to consider this diagnosis even though family history was negative for FOP. The fetus had the recurrent c.617G > A mutation in ACVR1 gene. This case illustrates that FOP should be considered in the differential diagnosis of fetal hallux valgus to provide appropriate genetic counseling.

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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.341 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrenatal DiagnosisSame topicHeterotopic Ossification and Related ConditionsFrench-language works237,207