MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039819049 · doi:10.1126/science.1063525

Triallelic Inheritance in Bardet-Biedl Syndrome, a Mendelian Recessive Disorder

2001· article· en· W2039819049 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Katsanis, Stephen J. Ansley, José L. Badano, Erica R. Eichers, Richard A. Lewis, Bethan E. Hoskins, Peter Scambler, William S. Davidson, Philip L. Beales, James R. Lupski

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Kidney Cyst Diseases
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Eye Institute
KeywordsBardet–Biedl syndromeGeneticsMendelian inheritancePolydactylyBiologyPedigree chartAlleleGenetic heterogeneityPositional cloningPhenotypeAutosomal recessive traitMutationOMIM : Online Mendelian Inheritance in ManGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bardet-Biedl syndrome (BBS) is a genetically heterogeneous disorder characterized by multiple clinical features that include pigmentary retinal dystrophy, polydactyly, obesity, developmental delay, and renal defects. BBS is considered an autosomal recessive disorder, and recent positional cloning efforts have identified two BBS genes (BBS2 and BBS6). We screened our cohort of 163 BBS families for mutations in both BBS2 and BBS6 and report the presence of three mutant alleles in affected individuals in four pedigrees. In addition, we detected unaffected individuals in two pedigrees who carry two BBS2 mutations but not a BBS6 mutation. We therefore propose that BBS may not be a single-gene recessive disease but a complex trait requiring three mutant alleles to manifest the phenotype. This triallelic model of disease transmission may be important in the study of both Mendelian and multifactorial disorders.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
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)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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

Citations655
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicGenetic and Kidney Cyst DiseasesFrench-language works237,207