MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042460778 · doi:10.1159/000335648

Update on Kleefstra Syndrome

2011· article· en· W2042460778 on OpenAlexaff
Marjolein H. Willemsen, Anneke T. Vulto‐van Silfhout, Willy M. Nillesen, W.M. Wissink-Lindhout, Hans van Bokhoven, N. Philip, Elizabeth Berry‐Kravis, Usha Kini, Conny M.A. van Ravenswaaij‐Arts, Barbara Delle Chiaie, A. Micheil Innes, Gunnar Houge, T Kosonen, Kirsten Cremer, Madeleine Fannemel, Asbjørg Stray‐Pedersen, William Reardon, Jaakko Ignatius, Katherine Lachlan, Clotilde Mircher, P.T.J.M. Helderman van den Enden, Mathilde Mastebroek, Petra E. Cohn‐Hokke, Helger G. Yntema, Séverine Drunat, Tjitske Kleefstra

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Syndromology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersZonMw
KeywordsHypotoniaIntellectual disabilityPhenotypeMedicineGeneticsMicrodeletion syndromeBioinformaticsPediatricsGeneBiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kleefstra syndrome is characterized by the core phenotype of developmental delay/intellectual disability, (childhood) hypotonia and distinct facial features. The syndrome can be either caused by a microdeletion in chromosomal region 9q34.3 or by a mutation in the euchromatin histone methyltransferase 1 (EHMT1) gene. Since the early 1990s, 85 patients have been described, of which the majority had a 9q34.3 microdeletion (>85%). So far, no clear genotype-phenotype correlation could be observed by studying the clinical and molecular features of both 9q34.3 microdeletion patients and patients with an intragenic EHMT1 mutation. Thus, to further expand the genotypic and phenotypic knowledge about the syndrome, we here report 29 newly diagnosed patients, including 16 patients with a 9q34.3 microdeletion and 13 patients with an EHMT1 mutation, and review previous literature. The present findings are comparable to previous reports. In addition to our former findings and recommendations, we suggest cardiac screening during follow-up, because of the possible occurrence of cardiac arrhythmias. In addition, clinicians and caretakers should be aware of the regressive behavioral phenotype that might develop at adolescent/adult age and seems to have no clear neurological substrate, but is rather a so far unexplained neuropsychiatric feature.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.201
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

Citations179
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular SyndromologySame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207