MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131322290 · doi:10.1542/peds.2005-0371

Complete DiGeorge Anomaly in the Absence of Neonatal Hypocalcemia and Velofacial and Cardiac Defects

2005· article· en· W2131322290 on OpenAlexaff
Salem Al‐Tamemi, Bruce Mazer, David Mitchell, Pedro Ferreira de Albuquerque, Alessandra M.V. Duncan, Christine McCusker, Nada Jabado

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiGeorge syndromePediatricsDifferential diagnosisSevere combined immunodeficiencyImmunologic Deficiency SyndromesPresentation (obstetrics)Primary immunodeficiencyImmunodeficiencyImmunologyPathologySurgeryImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report an atypical case of complete DiGeorge (DG) anomaly that presented initially exclusively as severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). The child had severe infections at diagnosis, in keeping with the SCID phenotype; however, normal lymphocyte counts and immunoglobulin levels were noted at admission, which delayed diagnosis. Importantly, the child presented without neonatal hypocalcemia or velofacial or cardiac abnormalities at the time of diagnosis, which masked underlying DG. This case outlines the difficulties in making the diagnosis of SCID in a timely manner and illustrates the variation in presentation of the 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. There should be a high index of suspicion for primary immunodeficiency among children with severe infections and, because management may vary, DG anomaly should be considered in the differential diagnosis of T- B+ natural killer+ SCID.

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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207