MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

BIGH3 Gene Mutations and Rapid Detection in Korean Patients With Corneal Dystrophy

2001· article· en· W1971015699 on OpenAlexaff
Hae-Sook Kim, Sungjoo Kim Yoon, Beom-Jin Cho, Eung Kweon Kim, Choun-Ki Joo

Bibliographic record

VenueCornea · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsSt Mary's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorneal dystrophyGeneticsGeneMutationMutantGene mutationBiologyPolymerase chain reactionSingle-strand conformation polymorphismExongenomic DNADystrophyMolecular biologyCornea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Mutations in the BIGH3 gene on chromosome 5q31 cause four distinct autosomal dominant corneal dystrophies. We sought to determine whether the BIGH3 gene mutation was responsible for corneal dystrophy in Korean patients. METHODS: Polymerase chain reaction single strand conformational polymorphism (PCR-SSCP) analysis was performed with the DNA from patients and healthy individuals. We sequenced the PCR products with the aberrant SSCP pattern to identify the mutation. Mutant-specific reverse primers were used to screen genomic DNA for the identified mutations. RESULTS: We identified mutations R124C in the CDL1 family and R124H in four families with a granular dystrophy. We identified our granular dystrophy to be Avellino corneal dystrophy (ACD). Eighteen of 20 patients with a granular dystrophy contained the same R124H mutation, indicating that mutation R124H was very common in Korean patients with ACD. During this study, we identified a new polymorphism (T1667C, F540F). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of mutations found in the BIGH3 gene in Korean families with corneal dystrophy. We report that the majority (90%) of ACD patients in Korea carry the R124H mutation. Mutant-specific reverse primers can be used to screen efficiently for CDL1 and ACD.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 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

Citations44
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorneaSame topicCorneal surgery and disordersFrench-language works237,207