MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990914866 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.30466

Ocular phenotypes of three genetic variants of Bardet–Biedl syndrome

2004· article· en· W1990914866 on OpenAlexaff
Elise Héon, Carol A. Westall, Rivka Carmi, Khalil Elbedour, Carole M. Panton, Leslie MacKeen, Edwin M. Stone, Val C. Sheffield

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Kidney Cyst Diseases
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Eye Institute
KeywordsBardet–Biedl syndromeRetinitis pigmentosaGenetic heterogeneityElectroretinographyMedicineRetinal degenerationPhenotypeGeneticsOphthalmologyBiologyRetinalGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bardet-Biedl syndrome is a genetically heterogeneous multisystem disorder that causes severe visual impairment. Retinitis pigmentosa (RP), hypogonadism, digit and renal anomalies, obesity, and a variable degree of mental retardation characterize the disorder. Eight different loci have been identified on 2q31(BBS5), 3p13 (BBS3), 4q27 (BBS7), 11q13 (BBS1), 14q32 (BBS8), 15q22.3 (BBS4), 16q21 (BBS2), and 20p12 (BBS6). The ocular manifestations of Bardet-Biedl syndrome include an early and severe rod-cone dystrophy causing legal blindness in the second decade. Features of systemic phenotypic variability were proposed to distinguish patients mapped to either the BBS2, BBS3, or BBS4 loci but no phenotype-genotype correlation has been established for the ocular phenotype. We studied the three original families used for the identification of BBS2, BBS3, and BBS4 loci to define the ocular phenotypes of patients (n = 34) and obligate carriers (n = 32) using clinical examination and electroretinography (ERG). RP was severe and early in all cases. Myopia was associated with BBS3 and BBS4, but not BBS2. One patient with Bardet-Biedl syndrome also had iris and chorioretinal colobomata, features suggestive of Biemond 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 score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations79
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicGenetic and Kidney Cyst DiseasesFrench-language works237,207