MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119689934 · doi:10.1093/brain/awl146

A new form of congenital muscular dystrophy with joint hyperlaxity maps to 3p23-21

2006· article· en· W2119689934 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Martine Tétreault

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnective tissue disorders research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersMuscular Dystrophy CanadaMuscular Dystrophy Association
KeywordsMuscular dystrophyJoint (building)Congenital muscular dystrophyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineAnatomyInternal medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Congenital muscular dystrophies (CMDS) are a heterogeneous group of disorders. A growing number of CMDS have been found to be associated with joint hyperlaxity. We recruited 14 French-Canadian cases belonging to 11 families affected by a novel autosomal recessive congenital muscular dystrophy with hyperlaxity (CMDH). All cases come from the southwestern part of Quebec, suggesting a new French-Canadian founder effect. All patients present muscle weakness, proximal contractures coexisting with distal joint hyperlaxity. Pathological and genetic studies have excluded that mutations in the three genes coding for collagen VI subunits are responsible for this disease. A genome-wide scan established linkage of two CMDH families to a region on chromosome 3p23-21. Further linkage analysis confirmed that all families are linked to the same region (log of the odds score of 5.3). Haplotype analysis defines a 1.6-cM candidate interval and suggests that two common mutations may account for 78% of carrier chromosomes. This study describes and maps a new form of recessive CMD with joint hyperlaxity distinct from Ullrich and Bethlem myopathies with a founder effect in the French-Canadian population.

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)0.000
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 score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations34
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicConnective tissue disorders researchFrench-language works237,207