MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968720872 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.36790

Prader–Willi syndrome and Tay–Sachs disease in association with mixed maternal uniparental isodisomy and heterodisomy 15 in a girl who also had isochromosome Xq

2014· article· en· W1968720872 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Zeesman, M. Elizabeth McCready, Bekim Sadiković, Małgorzata J.M. Nowaczyk

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine ProgramMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGirlIsochromosomeAssociation (psychology)MedicineGeneticsTay-Sachs diseasePediatricsPsychologyDiseaseBiologyInternal medicineKaryotypeChromosomeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Malsegregation of chromosomes during reproduction can result in uniparental disomy when associated with trisomy rescue, monosomy rescue or gamete complementation. Pathogenicity stemming from uniparental disomy in liveborns results from imprinting disorders or autozygosity for autosomal recessive disorders. We report on a girl with Prader-Willi syndrome and Tay-Sachs disease resulting from maternal uniparental disomy of chromosome 15. The child also had an isochromosome Xq. To further characterize the etiology of the aberrant chromosome 15 and the isochromosome Xq, SNP loci from both chromosomes were assessed in the proband and parents, and genome-wide DNA methylation analysis was performed. SNP and DNA methylation analysis confirmed maternal uniparental heterodisomy around the Prader-Willi locus, while the region around the HEXA locus showed maternal uniparental isodisomy. This result is consistent with trisomy rescue of a maternal meiosis l error in a chromosome 15 with two meiotic recombinations. SNP analysis of the X chromosomes is consistent with a maternal origin for the isochromosome.

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)0.001
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations41
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicGenetic Syndromes and ImprintingFrench-language works237,207