Genotype of Lattice Corneal Dystrophy (R124C Mutation in TGFBI) in a Patient Presenting With Features of Avellino Corneal Dystrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To present a patient with a genotype usually associated with lattice corneal dystrophy but with clinical and histopathologic features of advanced Avellino corneal dystrophy. METHODS: Penetrating keratoplasty was performed with subsequent histopathologic analysis. For genetic testing, a 5-mL blood sample was taken after informed consent. Genetic sequencing was performed by the John and Marcia Carver Laboratory of the University of Iowa. The mutation was identified by direct sequencing through the positions of the coding sequences of the TGFBI gene that have been previously reported to have genetic variations (exons 4 and 11-14). RESULTS: Corneal examination revealed bilateral lattice and multiple confluent subepithelial and anterior stromal granular opacities. Histopathologic examination showed amyloid deposits by Congo red stain and hyaline deposits by Masson trichrome stain, consistent with a diagnosis of Avellino dystrophy. Automated DNA sequencing revealed a heterozygous Arg124Cys (R124C) mutation in the coding sequence of the TGFBI gene on chromosome 5q31. Recurrent granular deposits developed in the corneal graft 14 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Our case presented with clinical and histopathologic findings consistent with a diagnosis of Avellino dystrophy and exhibited a genotype with R124C mutation. Avellino dystrophy has not previously been reported to be associated with the R124C mutation, which is usually associated with lattice corneal dystrophy. This also raises the issue as to whether classification of the corneal stromal dystrophies should be based primarily on phenotype/histopathology or on genotyping.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".