MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100223887 · doi:10.1159/000069134

Further Genetic Heterogeneity for Autosomal Dominant Human Sutural Cataracts

2003· article· en· W2100223887 on OpenAlexaff
Norman Klopp, Elise Héon, Gail Billingsley, Thomas Illig, Matthias Wjst, Günther Rudolph, Jochen Graw

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnexins and lens biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCataractsBiologyGeneticsGenetic heterogeneityPhenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A unique sutural cataract was observed in a 4-generation German family to be transmitted as an isolated autosomal, dominant trait. Since mutations in the gamma-crystallin encoding CRYG genes have previously been demonstrated to be the most frequent reason for isolated congenital cataracts, all 4 active CRYG genes have been sequenced. A single base-pair change in the CRYGA gene has been shown, leading to a premature stop codon. This was not observed in 170 control individuals. However, it did not segregate with the disease phenotype. This is the first truncating mutation in an active CRYG gene without a dominant phenotype. As the CRYGA mutation did not explain the cataract, several other candidate loci (CCV, GJA8, CRYBB2, BFSP2, MIP, GJA8, CENTRAL POUCH-LIKE, CRYBA1) were investigated by microsatellite markers and linkage analysis, but they were excluded based on the combination of haplotype analysis and two-point linkage analysis. The phenotype in this family is due to a mutation in another sutural cataract gene yet to be identified.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmic ResearchSame topicConnexins and lens biologyFrench-language works237,207