MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2127939011 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.20302

A unique patient with an Ullrich–Turner syndrome variant and mosaicism for a tiny r(X) and a partial proximal duplication 1q

2003· article· en· W2127939011 on OpenAlexafffund
AJ Dawson, D.E. Wickstrom, D. Riordan, Sharon Cardwell, Rachel K. Casey, Sarah E.L. Baldry, Carolyn J. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities
Canadian institutionsRoyal University HospitalUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of British ColumbiaHealth Sciences Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTurner syndromeGene duplicationGeneticsBiologyEndocrinologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 7-year old female with global cognitive impairment, short attention span, hyperactivity, impulsivity, and many compulsive behaviors was referred to the Genetics Clinic. Height was below the 5th centile and weight was at the 5th centile while head circumference was at the 50th centile. Minor anomalies included bluish sclera, low set and slightly posteriorly rotated auricles and a narrow palate with marked overbite. There was no significant family history. Chromosome analysis showed an unbalanced, mosaic female karyotype consisting of three cell lines: 46,X,+r[46]/45,X[37]/45,X,dup(1)(q11q21.3) [17] de novo.ish r(X)(DXZ1+,XIST+). Expression of XIST was observed in cDNA from the patient, suggesting the presence of an inactive X chromosome. Inactivation was confirmed by detection of a methylated allele of androgen receptor. This methylated allele was under-represented in undigested DNA, consistent with it arising from the r(X) which was present in only a minority of the patient's cells. The clinical phenotype of the tiny r(X) syndrome in our patient is obviously further influenced by mosaicism for the dup(1). Few cases of duplication of the proximal portion of chromosome 1 have been reported. Of these, the duplication either was present in all cells or involved different band regions so that a direct comparison would be difficult. However, the lower percentage of mosaicism for the dup(1) in our patient would suggest a milder influence on the clinical phenotype.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A→Same topicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities→French-language works237,207→