MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964759254 · doi:10.3402/ijch.v63i0.17899

Cholestasis Familiaris Groelandica: an epidemiological, clinical and genetic study

2004· article· en· W1964759254 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
I. Møller Nielsen, Hans Eiberg

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRigshospitalet
KeywordsProbandMedicineFailure to thriveJaundiceMissense mutationPediatricsCholestasisLiver diseasePopulationDiseaseEpidemiologyGeneticsMutationBiologyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Accumulation of Cholestasis Familiaris Groenlandica (CFG) or progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis type 1 (PFIC1) occurs in indigenous Inuit families in Greenland. It is an autosomal recessive inherited liver disease. From early childhood the children suffer from failure to thrive, jaundice, pruritus and enlarged liver. Affected persons generally die very young. STUDY DESIGN: Patients' information has been collected from the Greenlandic death register and hospital records. METHODS: Detailed genealogy including clinical description and examination if possible. Interviews of parents and relatives, linkage and DNA analysis of the probands and the closest relatives have been studied. RESULTS: 46 affected cases from a highly inbred population have been diagnosed since 1943. The disease is caused by a missense mutation in the FIC1 gene ATP8B1, chromosome 18q21. Six affected children are alive aged 1-21 years. Among the tested relatives 220 are heterozygote. One prenatal diagnosis has been performed. CONCLUSION: The mutation causing Cholestasis Familiaris Groenlandica is widespread in Greenland, but accumulation is seen in certain areas. The disease is burdensome for the child, the parents and the Greenlandic society. Genetic counselling and carrier screening are strongly recommended.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicDrug Transport and Resistance MechanismsFrench-language works237,207