Spinocerebellar ataxia type 3: subphenotypes in a cohort of brazilian patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Spinocerebellar ataxia type 3 (SCA3) involves cerebellar, pyramidal, extrapyramidal, motor neuron and oculomotor systems with strong phenotypic heterogeneity, that lead us to classify the disorder into different clinical subtypes according to the predominantly affected motor systems. METHOD: The series comprises 167 SCA3 patients belonging to 68 pedigrees, studied from 1989-2013. These patients were categorized into seven different subphenotypes. RESULTS: SCA3 cases were clustered according to the predominant clinical features. Three most common forms were subphenotype 2, characterized by ataxia and pyramidal symptom was observed in 67.5%, subphenotype 3 with ataxia and peripheral signs in 13.3%, and subphenotype 6 with pure cerebellar syndrome in 7.2%. CONCLUSION: Our study was the first to systematically classify SCA3 into seven subphenotypes. This classification may be particularly useful for determination of a more specific and direct phenotype/genotype correlation in future studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".