MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103199607 · doi:10.1136/jmg.2003.012252

A locus for spondylocarpotarsal synostosis syndrome at chromosome 3p14

2004· article· en· W2103199607 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos Eduardo Steiner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Genetics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnective tissue disorders research
Canadian institutionsNorthern Ontario Academic Medicine Association
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institutes of HealthCedars-Sinai Medical Center
KeywordsLocus (genetics)GeneticsGenetic linkageDisease gene identificationBiologyGene mappingConsanguinityDysostosisGenetic markerSynostosisChromosomeGeneMedicinePhenotypeExome sequencingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spondylocarpotarsal synostosis syndrome is a rare autosomal recessive disorder characterised by vertebral fusions, frequently manifesting as an unsegmented vertebral bar, as well as fusions of the carpal and tarsal bones. In a study of three consanguineous families and one non-consanguineous family, linkage analysis was used to establish the chromosomal location of the disease gene. Linkage analysis localised the disease gene to chromosome 3p14. A maximum lod score of 6.49 (q = 0) was obtained for the marker at locus D3S3532 on chromosome 3p. Recombination mapping narrowed the linked region to the 5.7 cM genetic interval between the markers at loci D3S3724 and D3S1300. A common region of homozygosity was found between the markers at loci D3S3724 and D3S1300, defining a physical interval of approximately 4 million base pairs likely to contain the disease gene. Identification of the gene responsible for this disorder will provide insight into the genes that play a role in the formation of the vertebral column and joints.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations13
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical GeneticsSame topicConnective tissue disorders researchFrench-language works237,207