MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1513099037 · doi:10.1002/0471695998.mgs012

<scp>C</scp>offin‐<scp>L</scp>owry Syndrome

2005· other· en· W1513099037 on OpenAlexaff
Alasdair G. W. Hunter

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypertelorismKyphoscoliosisUpper lipNoseMedicineForeheadLower lipAnatomyDermatologySurgeryScoliosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Coffin‐Lowry syndrome is a distinctive X‐linked dominantly inherited condition that has a birth prevalence of about 1/50,000 and is caused by mutations in theRDS6KA3gene. The hemizygous male presents with significant mental retardation and a facial appearance characterized by a prominent forehead and supraorbital ridges; down‐slanting palpebrae and hypertelorism; a distinctive nose with a low bridge, thick septum, small and anteverted nares; and full and patulous lips with the lower lip everted. The hands are soft and hyperextensible with tapering fingers, and there are a number of minor and nonspecific radiographic changes that may aid in the diagnosis. Progressive kyphoscoliosis can be an important complication. Clinical expression in the heterozygous female can range from completely normal intelligence and appearance, through mild degrees of intellectual impairment and facial dysmorphia, to expression equaling that in the male. There is evidence to suggest a significant risk of premature death, primarily related to pulmonary and cardiac complications but in some cases remaining unexplained.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.003

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207