MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097658015 · doi:10.1177/0300060513477306

Autosomal-dominant Meesmann epithelial corneal dystrophy without an exon mutation in the keratin-3 or keratin-12 gene in a Chinese family

2013· article· en· W2097658015 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Cao, Ming Yan, Qianyun Hao, Shulin Wang, Lihua Wu, Qing Liu, MingYan Li, Fred G. Biddle, Wei Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Medical Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSkin and Cellular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersMinisterio de Educación, Cultura y DeporteNational Science Foundation
KeywordsExonGeneticsKeratinMutationBiologyGeneKeratin 6APhenotypeMolecular biologyIntermediate filamentCytoskeletonCell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meesmann epithelial corneal dystrophy (MECD) is a dominantly inherited disorder, characterized by fragility of the anterior corneal epithelium and formation of intraepithelial microcysts. It has been described in a number of different ancestral groups. To date, all reported cases of MECD have been associated with either a single mutation in one exon of the keratin-3 gene (KRT3) or a single mutation in one of two exons of the keratin-12 gene (KRT12). Each mutation leads to a predicted amino acid change in the respective keratin-3 or keratin-12 proteins that combine to form the corneal-specific heterodimeric intermediate filament protein. This case report describes a four-generation Chinese kindred with typical autosomal-dominant MECD. Exon sequencing of KRT3 and KRT12 in six affected and eight unaffected individuals (including two spouses) did not detect any mutations or nucleotide sequence variants. This kindred demonstrates that single mis-sense mutations may be sufficient but are not required in all individuals with the MECD phenotype. It provides a unique opportunity to investigate further genomic and functional heterogeneity in MECD.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Medical ResearchSame topicSkin and Cellular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207