MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108838734 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.10141

Paternal transmission of the congenital form of myotonic dystrophy type 1: A new case and review of the literature

2002· review· en· W2108838734 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Zeesman, Nancy Carson, Donald T. Whelan

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of OttawaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyotonic dystrophyAsymptomaticAnticipation (artificial intelligence)Trinucleotide repeat expansionMyotoniaGeneticsTransmission (telecommunications)PediatricsMedicineBiologyGeneInternal medicineAllele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is an autosomal dominant trinucleotide repeat disorder that shows anticipation. The mildest manifestations of the DM gene are usually noted in individuals with the smallest repeat sizes, while congenital myotonic dystrophy (CDM) is the most common clinical outcome of the larger expansions. For many years, it was thought that CDM could only be maternally transmitted. However, in the last few years, cases of paternal transmission of CDM have been described. We report a child with the CDM phenotype and 1, 800 CTG repeats born to an asymptomatic father with 65 repeats and compare this case to the four currently in the literature. We note that polyhydramnios was present in the majority of cases and that all fathers whose status was known had small repeat sizes and/or were asymptomatic at the time of their child's birth. Although it may be unusual, the possibility of the paternal transmission of CDM should be mentioned when counseling families with DM. The men who are at highest risk may be those who have small repeats sizes and are asymptomatic.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.283 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations50
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical GeneticsSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207