Exfoliation syndrome: Clinical and genetic features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have ascertained a large number of individuals and families with exfoliation syndrome in order to clarify the disorder's mode of inheritance. Patients with exfoliation syndrome and their relatives were recruited from the practices of a group of ophthalmologists in Maritime Canada. The degree to which the subjects were affected was graded according to a standardized 1-4-point clinical scheme. Pedigrees were constructed from information supplied by family members and from genealogical sources. A total of 782 patients and relatives participated, of whom 467 were definitely affected. The mean age of affected males and females did not differ significantly, but females appeared to be more severely affected at ascertainment than males. More than half of the affected subjects had definite exfoliation in only one eye. Approximately 30 multiplex families were discovered, including one containing 23 affected members among a total of 137 examined individuals that constitutes the largest exfoliative pedigree thus far described. We observed well-documented paternal transmission of the trait, a finding that has not to our knowledge been previously reported. Clustering of cases in the families provides evidence for the involvement of genetic factors. The possibility of homozygosity is suggested in a few patients by the earlier or more frequent presentation of the disorder in the offspring of two affected parents or consanguineous pairings. Although a multifactorial mode of inheritance cannot be excluded, exfoliation syndrome appears to be inherited as an autosomal dominant trait whose late onset and incomplete penetrance poses a significant but not insuperable obstacle to pedigree construction.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".