MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The locus responsible for horizontal gaze palsy/progressive scoliosis and brainstem hypoplasia is refined to a 9‐cM region on chromosome 11q23

2004· article· en· W1574128925 on OpenAlexafffund
Bernard Lo, Muhammad Faiyaz‐Ul‐Haque, Brenda Banwell, Susan Blasér, Andrew D. Paterson, L‐C Tsui, Teebi As

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genetics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnective tissue disorders research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsHypoplasiaBrainstemAnatomyLocus (genetics)ScoliosisMedicineGeneticsBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Horizontal gaze palsy associated with progressive scoliosis (HGPS) is a rare autosomal recessive condition that has been recently mapped to a 30-cM region on chromosome 11q23-25. In this report, we describe a consanguineous family in which three of five sibs are affected with HGPS. In two of the affected sibs, there was significant cognitive delay in addition to congenital horizontal gaze palsy and childhood onset scoliosis. In all three affected sibs, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans revealed brainstem hypoplasia, a finding that has recently been associated with HGPS. Clinical examination of the family showed no significant dysmorphic features, while karyotyping, EMG, nerve conduction, and muscle biopsies were unrevealing. Homozygosity mapping was performed to narrow the disease locus on 11q23-25. A recombination event was observed in one affected sib between markers D11S1345 and D11S4464, which further refined the region to a 9-cM interval. Since the MRI results provide support for the theory that maldevelopment of neurons in the abducens nuclei and caudal longitudinal fascicle is the cause for HGPS, we speculate on the existence of a gene in this 9-cM interval on chromosome 11q23, which is critical for brainstem development.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical GeneticsSame topicConnective tissue disorders researchFrench-language works237,207