MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EVALUATION OF GENOTYPE–PHENOTYPE ASSOCIATIONS IN LEBER CONGENITAL AMAUROSIS

2005· article· en· W2010329064 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRetina · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRPE65GUCY2DGenotypeCohortBiologyOphthalmologyMedicineGenetic variationRetinal degenerationGeneticsPhenotypeRetinalGenePathologyRetinal pigment epithelium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To describe the clinical phenotypes associated with various genotypes known to cause Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA). METHODS: One hundred ten LCA patients were screened for various probable disease-causing gene sequence variations. Those patients with a probable disease-causing sequence variation in one of six genotypes were recalled for a follow-up examination. Evaluations included assessment of visual acuity, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, and dilated fundus examination. When possible, Goldmann perimetry was also performed. RESULTS: Of the 37 LCA patients with suspected disease-causing sequence variations, 7 had an AIPL1 variation, 8, a CRB1 variation, 2, a CRX variation, 4, a GUCY2D variation, 11, an RPE65 variation, and 5, an RPGRIP1 variation. Across the 6 genotypes, we observed a wide range of visual acuities from 20/40 to no light perception. The widest range of vision was noted for patients with a CRB1 or RPE65 variation. Younger patients with an AIPL1 or RPGRIP1 variation were found to have severely reduced vision. Drusenlike deposits were more selectively observed in patients with mutations in the AIPL1, CRB1, RPE65, and RPGRIP1 genes, whereas focal regions of peripheral chorioretinal atrophy were observed only in patients with AIPL1 or RPE65 variations. Neurologic, intellectual, or psychomotor developmental delay was noted in 8.1% of our cohort. CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable overlap of phenotypic expression in six genetic subtypes in our LCA cohort. However, phenotypic trends were noted in our patients' visual acuities and posterior segment findings within genotypes. These findings have practical value for genetic screening strategies for LCA patients based upon phenotype as well as for counseling patients on their visual prognosis.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.261 · 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