MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992832905 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.31699

Kidney failure in Townes–Brocks syndrome: An under recognized phenomenon?

2007· article· en· W1992832905 on OpenAlexfundno aff
William Reardon, Liam Casserly, Ralf Birkenhäger, Jürgen Kohlhase

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenNational Science Foundation
KeywordsKidneyMedicinePhenotypeInternal medicineBiologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Though uncommon, kidney malformations are described in several cases of Townes-Brocks syndrome. By contrast, kidney failure has been reported as the presenting feature of Townes-Brocks syndrome on only one occasion. While the SALL1 gene, mutations of which result in the Townes-Brocks phenotype, is expressed in the developing kidney, the absence of other corroborative reports of kidney failure presenting in affected individuals suggests that the solitary observation of kidney failure is as likely due to chance as to causal association. In now reporting a further instance of this association, we review the literature, demonstrating that several other instances of kidney failure are in fact known, despite an incomplete dataset. These findings suggest that kidney failure may be a constituent element of the natural history of Townes-Brocks syndrome and raise the possible benefits of longitudinal survey for progressive kidney impairment in patients with this 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207