MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034737696 · doi:10.1097/dbp.0b013e318146903d

A Case Report of Monozygotic Twins with Smith-Magenis Syndrome

2008· article· en· W2034737696 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Hicks, Susan A. Ferguson, François P. Bernier, Jean-François Lemay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonozygotic twinAutismPsychologyDevelopmental disorderDevelopmental psychologyPhenotypeBehavioral syndromeAutism spectrum disorderZygosityCognitionGeneticsNeuroscienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monozygotic 3.5-year-old twin boys presented for developmental assessment with a history of global developmental delay, behavioral issues including self-harm, and severe receptive and expressive language delays. Chromosome testing confirmed for both a 17p11.2 interstitial microdeletion commonly seen in Smith-Magenis syndrome (SMS), which is characterized by developmental delay, cognitive impairment, and facial and behavioral phenotype. To our knowledge, this is the first description in the literature of monozygotic twins with SMS. Despite their zygosity, the twins had marked differences in presentation including cardiac and renal anomalies, language development, and behavioral phenotype. Both twins displayed disordered speech development, impairments in social interaction, and stereotyped behaviors consistent with autism spectrum disorder, common in the vast majority of cases of SMS. Examining the differences in behavioral and clinical phenotype in monozygotic twins may lead to a better understanding of the cause of the clinical variability seen in SMS, as well as the natural history of this syndrome.

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 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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Developmental & Behavioral PediatricsSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207