Phenotype and Genotype of Patients with Autosomal Recessive Bestrophinopathy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the phenotype and genotype of patients with autosomal recessive bestrophinopathy. METHODOLOGY: The phenotype of the subjects was described after a complete ophthalmological examination, and in various cases, ancillary testing of the visual field, optical coherent tomography, full field electroretinography and electrophysiology. Genetic analysis was carried out by screening the Bestrophin-1 (BEST1) gene for mutations by dideoxy sequencing and segregation analysis. RESULTS: We identified three previously described mutations (Ala195Val, Leu191Pro and Arg141His) and two potentially pathogenic changes (Trp93Pro and Trp287Ter) in the Best-1 gene. Two patients carried compound heterozygous mutations, Trp93Pro/Ala195Val, and Leu191Pro/Trp287Ter. Two sisters were homozygous for an Arg141His mutation. All individuals with Best1 gene mutations had signs of maculopathy. CONCLUSIONS: Our observations expand the limited number of phenotypes associated with mutations in the Best1 gene. Patients with compound heteroyzygous Best1 mutations developed atypical forms of Best disease. Two siblings with homozygous Arg141His mutation developed symptoms of typical Best vitelliform dystrophy while their parents had clinical features of mild maculopathy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it