MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035731147 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.35399

Definition of a critical genetic interval related to kidney abnormalities in the Potocki–Lupski syndrome

2012· article· en· W2035731147 on OpenAlexaff
Elaine Goh, Irene C. Perez, César P. Canales, Phillip Ruiz, Ron Agatep, Grace Yoon, David Chitayat, Yigal Dror, Mary Shago, Sharan Goobie, Michael Sgro, Katherina Walz, Roberto Mendoza‐Londono

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalMcGill University Health CentreChildren's Hospital of Western OntarioUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenMontreal Children's Hospital
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsGene duplicationHypotoniaPhenotypeKidneySyntenyRenal agenesisMedicineGeneticsBiologyBioinformaticsPathologyGeneChromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Potocki-Lupski syndrome is a genomic disorder caused by duplication of 17p11.2. It is characterized by failure to thrive, intellectual disability, hypotonia, and behavioral difficulties. Structural renal anomalies have been observed in <10% of affected individuals. We present detailed clinical and molecular data on six patients with Potocki-Lupski syndrome, two of whom had renal abnormalities, and investigate the prevalence of kidney abnormalities in the mouse model for the syndrome. In contrast to affected humans, the mouse model does not demonstrate a renal phenotype. Comparison of the duplicated segment in patients with Potocki-Lupski syndrome and the renal phenotype and the syntenic duplicated region in the mouse model allowed us to suggest a 0.285 Mb critical region, including the FLCN gene that may be important for development of renal abnormalities in patients with this duplication.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207