MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1493379081 · doi:10.1111/cge.12143

Beckwith–Wiedemann and Silver–Russell syndromes: opposite developmental imbalances in imprinted regulators of placental function and embryonic growth

2013· review· en· W1493379081 on OpenAlexafffund
KJ Jacob, WP Robinson, Louis Lefebvre

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genetics · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Canadian institutionsChild and Family Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsBeckwith–Wiedemann syndromeGenomic imprintingEpigeneticsBiologyImprinting (psychology)PhenotypeEmbryonic stem cellGeneticsFunction (biology)GeneLoss functionEndocrinologyDNA methylationGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS) and Silver-Russell syndrome (SRS) are two congenital disorders with opposite outcomes on fetal growth, overgrowth and growth restriction, respectively. Although both disorders are heterogeneous, most cases of BWS and SRS are associated with opposite epigenetic or genetic abnormalities on 11p15.5 leading to opposite imbalances in the expression levels of imprinted genes. In this article, we review evidence implicating these genes in the developmental regulation of embryonic growth and placental function in mouse models. The emerging picture suggests that both SRS and BWS can be caused by the simultaneous and opposite deregulation of two groups of imprinted genes on 11p15.5. A detailed description of the phenotypic abnormalities associated with each syndrome must take into consideration the developmental functions of each gene involved.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 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

Citations48
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical GeneticsSame topicGenetic Syndromes and ImprintingFrench-language works237,207