MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018841184 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.10049

Syndrome of coronal craniosynostosis, Klippel-Feil anomaly, and sprengel shoulder with and without Pro250Arg mutation in the FGFR3 gene

2001· article· en· W2018841184 on OpenAlexafffund
R. Brian Lowry, Ethylin Wang Jabs, Gail E. Graham, Jennifer Gerritsen, John R. Fleming

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Children's Hospital
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchHospital for Sick ChildrenMarch of Dimes Foundation
KeywordsBrachydactylySynostosisGeneticsDysostosisMutationAnatomyBiologyMedicineShort statureGeneSurgeryEndocrinologyCongenital disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A unique Pro250Arg point mutation in fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) was initially reported by Bellus et al. [1996: Nat Genet 14:174-176] and the phenotype subsequently by Muenke et al. [1997: Am J Hum Genet 60:555-564], Reardon et al. [1997: J Med Genet 34:632-636], and Graham et al. [1998: Am J Med Genet 77:322-329]. These authors emphasized the pleiotropic nature of this form of coronal craniosynostosis, including brachydactyly with carpal and/or tarsal coalitions, with other anomalies at lower frequency. We report on a family with autosomal dominant coronal synostosis, segmentation and fusion anomalies of the vertebra and ribs, and Sprengel shoulder due to the Pro250Arg mutation. We also report a single case with an identical phenotype without the mutation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.265
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations32
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical GeneticsSame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207