MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985949281 · doi:10.1159/000370081

Clinical and Molecular Characterization of a Patient with 15q21.2q22.2 Deletion Syndrome

2014· article· en· W1985949281 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ana Claudia Velázquez‐Wong, Ruth Ruiz Esparza‐Garrido, Miguel Ángel Velázquez-Flores, Juan Carlos Huicochea‐Montiel, Alan Cárdenas‐Conejo, Cristian P. Miguez-Muñoz, María Antonieta de Jesús Araújo-Solís, Fabio Salamanca-Gómez, Diego Arenas‐Aranda

Bibliographic record

VenueCytogenetic and Genome Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and TechnologyHealth CanadaInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social
KeywordsPhenotypeBreakpointGeneticsBiologyChromosomal regionGeneChromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on a 16-year-old girl with a complex phenotype, including intellectual disability, facial dysmorphisms, and obesity. During her infancy, she presented with weak sucking, global developmental delay, and later with excessive eating with central obesity. The girl was clinically diagnosed with probable Prader-Willi syndrome. Chromosomal analysis showed a de novo deletion 46,XX,del(15)(q21q22). However, the use of the Affymetrix CytoScan HD Array defined the exact breakpoints of the deleted 15q21q22 region. The imbalance, about 10.5 Mb in size, is to date the second largest deletion ever described in this chromosomal region. In addition, our patient carries a microdeletion in the 1q44 region and a gain in 9p24. The array result was arr[hg19] 9p24.1(6,619,823-6,749,335)×3, 1q44(248,688,586-248,795,277)×1, 15q21.2 q22.2(50,848,301-61,298,006)×1. Although our patient presents additional chromosomal alterations, we provide a correlation between the clinical findings and the phenotype of the 15q21 deletion syndrome.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytogenetic and Genome ResearchSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207