MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047087015 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.36928

Movement disorders and other motor abnormalities in adults with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome

2015· article· en· W2047087015 on OpenAlexafffund
Erik Boot, Nancy J. Butcher, Thérèse A. van Amelsvoort, Anthony E. Lang, Connie Marras, Margarita Pondal, Danielle M. Andrade, Wai Lun Alan Fung, Anne S. Bassett

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research CentreToronto Western HospitalCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthThe Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of CanadaUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMovement disordersDeletion syndromeMedicineDiGeorge syndromeDiseaseNeurosciencePopulationPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Movement abnormalities are frequently reported in children with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS), but knowledge in this area is scarce in the increasing adult population. We report on five individuals illustrative of movement disorders and other motor abnormalities in adults with 22q11.2DS. In addition to an increased susceptibility to neuropsychiatric disorders, seizures, and early-onset Parkinson disease, the underlying brain dysfunction associated with 22q11.2DS may give rise to an increased vulnerability to multiple movement abnormalities, including those influenced by medications. Movement abnormalities may also be secondary to treatable endocrine diseases and congenital musculoskeletal abnormalities. We propose that movement abnormalities may be common in adults with 22q11.2DS and discuss the implications and challenges important to clinical practice.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations63
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207