MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032072524 · doi:10.1002/mus.21145

Novel 95G>A (R32K) somatic mosaic connexin 32 mutation

2008· article· en· W2032072524 on OpenAlexaff
Steven K. Baker, Cara C. Reith, Peter Ainsworth

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHereditary Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConnexin 32MutationPhenotypeGeneticsTransition (genetics)BiologySomatic cellPeripheral neuropathyGeneLineage (genetic)ConnexinEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) is among the most common inherited disorders of the peripheral nervous system, and it is broadly categorized as demyelinating type 1 or axonal type 2 based on nerve conduction studies. Mutations in discrete genes usually segregate into a single phenotype. However, mutations in connexin 32 (Cx32) can produce both axonal and demyelinating CMT phenotypes. Although over 300 mutations have been described in Cx32, somatic mosaicism has only been reported once previously. We report a 39-year-old man who was referred for electrodiagnostic evaluation due to a history of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. His physical examination and electrodiagnostic findings demonstrated a mild sensorimotor axonal peripheral neuropathy. Sequencing of his Cx32 (GJB1) gene identified a guanine-to-adenine (G>A) transition at nucleotide position 95. This transition mutation involved approximately one-third of leukocyte-derived genomic DNA. This is the second reported case of somatic mosaicism, and it highlights the phenotypic diversity among CMTX patients.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicHereditary Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207