MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091053464 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.32074

Brain anomalies in encephalocraniocutaneous lipomatosis

2007· article· en· W2091053464 on OpenAlexaff
Ute Moog, Marilyn C. Jones, David Viskochil, Alain Verloès, Margot I. Van Allen, William B. Dobyns

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and rare skin diseases.
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeuroimagingPathologyLipomatosisMeningesAtrophyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Encephalocraniocutaneous lipomatosis (ECCL) is a sporadically occurring neurocutaneous disorder characterized by ocular anomalies, skin lesions, and CNS anomalies. We report on four new patients with this syndrome. Additionally, we reviewed (i) the brain imaging studies and clinical data of these new cases of ECCL and six other previously published ECCL patients, and (ii) the literature on 42 other patients who had undergone some form of neuroimaging, including three cases with probable or uncertain ECCL diagnoses. Thirty-three of 52 patients showed intracranial lipomas, frequently of cerebello-pontine location, and/or spinal lipomatosis. The latter has been found in 12/13 patients who had imaging studies of the spine. Other frequent findings included congenital anomalies of the meninges, in particular arachnoid cysts, and remarkably asymmetric anomalies caused by putative focal vascular defects, such as (partial) atrophy of one hemisphere or thin cerebral mantle, porencephalic cysts and calcifications. Vessel anomalies were found in nine patients. No correlation between the brain anomalies and the degree of retardation or epilepsy could be established. These data provide evidence that the brain anomalies in ECCL are not primary brain malformations but arise secondary to a mesenchymal defect affecting mostly neural crest derivatives.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations67
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicGenetic and rare skin diseases.French-language works237,207