MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1583766459 · doi:10.1159/000072038

A Molecular Perspective on Corneal Dystrophies

2003· review· en· W1583766459 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea L. Vincent, David S. Rootman, Francis L. Munier, Elise H�on

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopments in ophthalmology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPenetranceMendelian inheritanceBiologyOMIM : Online Mendelian Inheritance in ManPhenotypeKeratoconusGeneticsCorneal DiseasesCorneaGeneNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corneal dystrophies refer to a group of corneal diseases and that are genetically determined. These have been traditionally classified with respect to the layer of cornea involved. We now know that this does not reflect the underlying pathobiology. Most of the corneal dystrophies are of Mendelian inheritance with some phenotype diversity and a variable degree of penetrance. The dystrophies involving enzymatic processes tend to be of autosomal recessive inheritance. In some cases, such as keratoconus, the inheritance pattern is not always clear and is considered complex. The age of onset of the disease, as in most inherited eye disorders, is variable and does not reflect the underlying pathogenic defect. Few cases are congenital. Our understanding of corneal dystrophies is undergoing somewhat of a revolution as over 12 chromosomes have been associated with corneal dystrophies with mutations identified in at least 14 genes if one includes anterior segment dysgenesis in this group of conditions. Several dystrophies remain without a gene or a genetic location (locus) and more familial studies are required. The new molecular information is challenging the traditional thinking about these conditions that was usually guided by the histopathological findings. As this new knowledge becomes more refined, the classification of this group of disorders will eventually be revisited to have a molecular basis. The elucidation of the underlying biochemical pathways may allow us to envisage the possibility of modulating these phenotypes in the future.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopments in ophthalmologySame topicCorneal surgery and disordersFrench-language works237,207