MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sibship stability of genotype and phenotype in myotonic dystrophy

2002· article· en· W1886725596 on OpenAlexafffund
Diane Brisson, Marc Adélard Tremblay, Claude Prévost, Claude Laberge, Jack Puymirat, Jean Mathieu

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genetics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalCégep de JonquièreUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsMyotonic dystrophyPhenotypeGeneticsBiologyGenotypeMyotoniaTrinucleotide repeat expansionAlleleGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Myotonic dystrophy (DM1) is caused by an unstable CTG repeat expansion. Despite the evidence of birth order effect in congenital DM1, the expansion's dynamics among sibships is still unknown. The objective of this study was to determine phenotype and CTG repeat size variability in DM1 sibships, and to investigate their predictive values. We compared 86 sib pairs for CTG repeat, 61 for age at onset and 89 for DM1 phenotype. CTG repeats remained stable for 66 of the 86 sib pairs, including 25 of 27 maternal transmissions and 30 of 42 paternal transmissions. Variations of less than 10 years in the age at onset were observed in 44 of 61 sib pairs, including 16 of 18 maternal transmissions and 19 of 28 paternal transmissions. The same phenotypic severity or a variation of only one class was observed among 86 of the 89 sib pairs, including all of the 35 maternal transmissions and 30 of the 33 paternal transmissions. Birth order, intergenesic interval, oldest sib's CTG repeat or parental age and CTG repeat did not exert any significant influence. These results suggest that genotype and phenotype remained stable among sibs, although the paternal origin of the mutation seemed to reduce the predictability of the severity.

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)0.000
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical GeneticsSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207