MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077266296 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.33320

Absence of signs of systemic involvement in four patients with bilateral multiple facial angiofibromas

2010· review· en· W2077266296 on OpenAlexaff
Alasdair G. W. Hunter, Marjan M. Nezarati, Lea Velsher

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberous Sclerosis Complex Research
Canadian institutionsNorth York General Hospital
FundersNorthwestern University
KeywordsSign (mathematics)Tuberous sclerosisMedicineDermatologyClinical significanceAngiofibromaGeneticistPsychologyPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Facial angiofibromas are a major diagnostic sign for tuberous sclerosis (TS) and MEN1, and the former is probably the first disease to be considered by a geneticist when such lesions are found. They occur in up to 90% of persons with TS and 40-80% of individuals with MEN1. Early onset facial angiofibromas that are not associated with any other systemic sign appear to be unusual, and their occurrence can leave the clinician with some uncertainty as to their significance, as well as how to proceed. In this article we describe four patients with what appear to be isolated, bilateral facial angiofibromas. We discuss the significance of these lesions with respect to the conditions in which they have been seen, review prior reports of apparently isolated angiofibromas, and provide some rough calculations as to how likely it would be for an underlying systemic condition to be overlooked after different levels of investigation have been performed. We also look at some aspects of the financial cost/benefit ratio of further investigation of TS beyond a clinical examination.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicTuberous Sclerosis Complex ResearchFrench-language works237,207