MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109962982 · doi:10.1055/s-0035-1549298

Prenatal Diagnosis of Walker–Warburg Syndrome Using Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Array: A Clinical Experience from Three Related Palestinian Families with Congenital Hydrocephalus

2015· article· en· W2109962982 on OpenAlexaff
Eman Al Sulmi, Bernard Chodirker, Jennifer Hunt, Iman S. Abumansour

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrocephalusMedicinePrenatal diagnosisFetusSingle-nucleotide polymorphismSNPPopulationPediatricsEtiologyGenetic testingPregnancyGeneticsBioinformaticsPathologyGeneInternal medicineSurgeryBiologyGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Congenital hydrocephalus is a common and often disabling disorder. Various syndromic forms of hydrocephalus have been reported in the Palestinian population including Walker-Warburg syndrome (WWS), Carpenter syndrome, and Meckel syndrome. Aim In this report we discuss the antenatal diagnosis of congenital hydrocephalus in three related Palestinian families. Method Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array was performed prenatally for the third affected fetus. Results A diagnosis of WWS was found and molecular testing revealed a known pathogenic mutation in the POMT2 gene. An affected fetus from the other family was diagnosed and tested postnatally in light of this finding. Testing of another affected stillborn offspring was performed and revealed the same mutation. Conclusions Here, we show that the use of prenatal SNP array testing can be helpful in elucidating the etiology of congenital hydrocephalus and in guiding appropriate perinatal care. Also, testing for this specific POMT2 mutation should be considered in cases of prenatally detected hydrocephalus in Palestinian families.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Perinatology ReportsSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207