MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069980266 · doi:10.1177/0883073810380047

Pontocerebellar Hypoplasia: Review of Classification and Genetics, and Exclusion of Several Genes Known to Be Important for Cerebellar Development

2011· review· en· W2069980266 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen M. Maricich, Kaashif A. Aqeeb, Yalda Moayedi, Erin L. Mathes, Millan S. Patel, David Chitayat, Gilles Lyon, Jules G. Leroy, Huda Y. Zoghbi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsHypoplasiaPonsCerebellar hypoplasia (non-human)CerebellumNeuroscienceBiologyPathologyMedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pontocerebellar hypoplasias are a heterogeneous group of rare and devastating conditions characterized by multiple structural abnormalities of the ventral pons, inferior olive, and cerebellum. Here, we briefly review these conditions and discuss genes recently discovered to be involved in pontocerebellar hypoplasia pathogenesis. We then present data that exclude several genes important for cerebellar development as causes of pontocerebellar hypoplasia-4 and pontocerebellar hypoplasia-5, and we demonstrate that not all cases of clinically defined pontocerebellar hypoplasia-4 result from mutations in TSEN54. We conclude that classification based on clinical, imaging, and neuropathological findings does not differentiate between pontocerebellar hypoplasia subtypes with different genetic causes.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207