Two extraordinarily severe cases of Treacher Collins syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here, we report two extraordinarily severe cases of Teacher Collins syndrome. Initially, amniotic bands and plical fold disruption were considered, but downslanting eyes made us consider severe Treacher Collins syndrome. A TCOF1 mutation in exon 24 was identified in Patient 1 (c.4355_4356ins14, resulting in p.1456Thrfs*18). Patient 2, who expired on day 4, is so similar to Patient 1 that severe Treacher Collins syndrome may be inferred in this instance. Neither the TCOF1 mutation nor the well-known variability in the expression in affected families with Treacher Collins syndrome (∼40% of reported cases) can explain the severity of these cases; otherwise, we would be aware of such cases within families from time to time. We are unaware of any recent sporadic cases (∼60% of reported cases) exactly like ours either with a single exception in the case reported by Writzl et al. [2008] with a TCOF1 mutation. The case described by Otto in 1841 is spectacular. We propose several hypotheses to be considered in explaining this developmental amplification, including some promoter effect on the gene, some position effect on the gene, a polymorphism elsewhere in the gene, a point mutation elsewhere in the gene, a polymorphism in another gene, or a point mutation in another gene, such as POLR1C (which maps to 6p21.1) or POLR1D (which maps to13q12.2). We also review the etiology and pathogenesis of Treacher Collins syndrome, and discuss several other severe cases from the past.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".