MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990550852 · doi:10.1159/000086356

Preliminary Evidence for Ethnic Differences in Primary Hyperoxaluria Type 1 Genotype

2005· article· en· W1990550852 on OpenAlexafffund
Marion B. Coulter-Mackie

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Nephrology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSick Kids Foundation
KeywordsGenotypeGeneticsPrimary hyperoxaluriaEthnic groupAllelePopulationFounder effectAllele frequencyMedicineMutationBiologyInternal medicineGeneHaplotypeKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Primary hyperoxaluria type 1 (PH1) is caused by a deficiency of peroxisomal alanine:glyoxylate aminotransferase (AGT). In about one third of patients, enzymatically active AGT is synthesized but is mistargeted to mitochondria. There are more than 50 mutations identified in the gene for AGT. Four mutations, G170R, 33_34insC, F152I and I244T account for more than 50% of PH1 alleles. The question arose whether there are ethnic differences in PH1 genotype. METHODS: The published data on mutations in the AGT gene were examined with respect to recurrences and geographic or ethnic association. The mutations that have been found in at least 2 unrelated individuals were considered. RESULTS: Two common mutations, G170R and 33_34insC showed no obvious ethnic associations and have been found in a variety of populations. A third common PH1 mutation, I244T, has a strong association with people from a Spanish or North African background. A particularly high frequency among Canary Islands PH1 patients suggests a probable founder effect. Between these two extremes are a number of mutations that recur at low frequency within certain ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnic associations of PH1 genotypes span a spectrum ranging from limited recurrences confined to a population group, to a probable founder effect.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations24
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of NephrologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207