MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087620221 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.35206

R179H mutation in ACTA2 expanding the phenotype to include prune‐belly sequence and skin manifestations

2012· article· en· W2087620221 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Richer, Dianna M. Milewicz, Robert M. Gow, Joseph de Nanassy, Gyaandeo Maharajh, Elka Miller, Lawrence Oppenheimer, Gabrielle Weiler, Michael D. O’Connor

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic aneurysm repair treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMutationMedicineSequence (biology)PhenotypeAnatomyBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mutations in ACTA2 (smooth muscle cell-specific isoform of α-actin) lead to a predisposition to thoracic aortic aneurysms and other vascular diseases. More recently, the ACTA2 R179H mutation has been described in individuals with global smooth muscle dysfunction. We report a patient heterozygous for the mutation in ACTA2 R179H who presented with megacystis at 13 weeks gestational age and, at birth, with prune-belly sequence. He also had deep skin dimples and creases on his palms and soles, a finding not previously described but possibly related to ACTA2. To our knowledge, this is the first report of the R179H mutation in ACTA2 in a child with prune-belly sequence. We think the R179H mutation in ACTA2 should be included in the differential diagnosis of individuals presenting with the sequence without an identified mechanical obstruction. Furthermore, as ACTA2 R179H has been reported in patients with severe vasculomyopathy and premature death, we recommend that molecular testing for this mutation be considered in fetuses presenting with fetal megacystis with a normal karyotype, particularly if the bladder diameter is 15 mm or more, to allow expectant parents to make an informed decision.

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)0.001
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 score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations66
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicAortic aneurysm repair treatmentsFrench-language works237,207