Spinocerebellar ataxias – genotype-phenotype correlations in 104 Brazilian families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Spinocerebellar ataxias are neurodegenerative disorders involving the cerebellum and its connections. There are more than 30 distinct subtypes, 16 of which are associated with an identified gene. The aim of the current study was to evaluate a large group of patients from 104 Brazilian families with spinocerebellar ataxias. METHODS: We studied 150 patients from 104 families with spinocerebellar ataxias who had received molecular genetic testing for spinocerebellar ataxia types 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 17, and dentatorubral-pallidoluysian atrophy. A statistical analysis of the results was performed using basic descriptive statistics and the correlation coefficient (r), Student's t-test, chi-square test, and Yates' correction. The statistical significance level was established for p-values <0.05. RESULTS: The results show that the most common subtype was spinocerebellar ataxia 3, which was followed by spinocerebellar ataxia 10. Moreover, the comparison between patients with spinocerebellar ataxia 3, spinocerebellar ataxia 10, and other types of spinocerebellar ataxia revealed distinct clinical features for each type. In patients with spinocerebellar ataxia 3, the phenotype was highly pleomorphic, although the most common signs of disease included cerebellar ataxia (CA), ophthalmoplegia, diplopia, eyelid retraction, facial fasciculation, pyramidal signs, and peripheral neuropathy. In patients with spinocerebellar ataxia 10, the phenotype was also rather distinct and consisted of pure cerebellar ataxia and abnormal saccadic eye movement as well as ocular dysmetria. Patients with spinocerebellar ataxias 2 and 7 presented highly suggestive features of cerebellar ataxia, including slow saccadic ocular movements and areflexia in spinocerebellar ataxia 2 and visual loss in spinocerebellar ataxia 7. CONCLUSIONS: Spinocerebellar ataxia 3 was the most common subtype examined, followed by spinocerebellar ataxia 10. Patients with spinocerebellar ataxia 2 and 7 demonstrated highly suggestive features, whereas the phenotype of spinocerebellar ataxia 3 patients was highly pleomorphic and spinocerebellar ataxia 10 patients exhibited pure cerebellar ataxia. Epilepsy was absent in all of the patients with spinocerebellar ataxia 10 in this series.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".