MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Genetic Approach to the Diagnosis of Skeletal Dysplasia

2002· article· en· W2058000923 on OpenAlexaff
Sheila Unger

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnective tissue disorders research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePrenatal diagnosisDifferential diagnosisDysplasiaPhysical examinationRadiographyGenetic counselingMedical diagnosisGenetic diagnosisFamily historyPediatricsIntensive care medicineRadiologyPathologyPregnancyGeneticsFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The skeletal dysplasias are a large and heterogeneous group of disorders. Currently, there are more than 100 recognized forms of skeletal dysplasia, which makes arriving at a specific diagnosis difficult. This process is additionally complicated by the rarity of the individual conditions. The establishment of a precise diagnosis is important for numerous reasons, including prediction of adult height, accurate recurrence risk, prenatal diagnosis in future pregnancies, and most importantly, for proper clinical treatment. When a child is referred for genetic evaluation of suspected skeletal dysplasia, clinical and radiographic indicators, and more specific biochemical and molecular tests, are used to try to arrive at the underlying diagnosis. Preferably, the clinical features and pattern of radiographic abnormalities are used to generate a differential diagnosis so that the appropriate confirmatory tests can be done. The current author will review this sequence of diagnostic steps. For geneticists, this process starts with history gathering including the prenatal and family history. This is followed by clinical examination with measurements and radiographs. Only once a limited differential diagnosis has been established, should molecular investigations be considered.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations38
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicConnective tissue disorders researchFrench-language works237,207