MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026102897 · doi:10.1212/wnl.58.6.853

Cerebral cavernous malformations

2002· review· en· W2026102897 on OpenAlexaff
D. J. Verlaan, William Jeptha Davenport, Hermann Stefan, Ulrich Sure, Adrian M. Siegel, Guy A. Rouleau

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExonGeneGeneticsMutationBiologyMolecular biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To find mutations in the recently identified additional exons of the Krit1 gene that causes CCM1, a disease characterized by the formation of cerebral cavernous malformations (CCM). To determine the relative frequency with which Krit1 mutations cause CCM as well as recharacterize the mutations reported in the literature. METHODS: Twenty-seven families and 11 apparently sporadic individuals affected with CCM were screened for mutations in the Krit1 gene. The gene was screened by single stranded conformation polymorphism, and variants were sequenced. Familial segregation of the mutations was determined. RESULTS: In familial samples, two new mutations in the novel upstream exons and six additional mutations in the previously identified exons were identified. No mutation was found in any of the sporadic individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate that the frequency of mutations found in Krit1 is 47% in the families studied and the frequency may increase as more mutations are detected. Mutations are evenly distributed in the gene and do not seem to be limited to structural domains present in Krit1. This is in accordance with the model that Krit1 could be a tumor suppressor gene.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.316
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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations80
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207