MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome

2004· review· en· W1891037876 on OpenAlexaff
RL Pollex, RA Hegele

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genetics · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNuclear Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical Trials
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLMNAProgeriaLaminBiologyGeneticsPremature agingNuclear laminaPoint mutationMutationExonGeneNuclear proteinTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome (HGPS) is an extremely rare genetic disorder that causes premature, rapid aging shortly after birth. Recently, de novo point mutations in the Lmna gene have been found in individuals with HGPS. Lmna encodes lamin A and C, the A-type lamins, which are an important structural component of the nuclear envelope. The most common HGPS mutation is located at codon 608 (G608G). This mutation creates a cryptic splice site within exon 11, which deletes a proteolytic cleavage site within the expressed mutant lamin A. Incomplete processing of prelamin A results in nuclear lamina abnormalities that can be observed in immunofluorescent studies of HGPS cells. Mouse models, such as Lmna knockout, Zmpste24 knockout, and Lmna L530P knockin will help the study of progeria. Lmna mutations have also recently been found in patients with atypical forms of progeria. The discovery of the HGPS mutations brings the total number of diseases caused by mutant Lmna to nine, underscoring the astonishing spectrum of laminopathies. Future research into HGPS could also provide important clues about the general process of aging and aging-related diseases.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations189
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical GeneticsSame topicNuclear Structure and FunctionFrench-language works237,207