MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131454746 · doi:10.1136/jmedgenet-2012-101307

Osteogenesis imperfecta type V: marked phenotypic variability despite the presence of the <i>IFITM5</i> c.−14C&gt;T mutation in all patients

2012· article· en· W2131454746 on OpenAlexafffund
Frank Rauch, Pierre Moffatt, Moira Cheung, Peter J. Roughley, Liljana Lalic, Allan M. Lund, Norman Ramírez, Somayyeh Fahiminiya, Jacek Majewski, Francis H. Glorieux

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Genetics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnective tissue disorders research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill Genome CentreShriners Hospitals for Children - Canada
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsOsteogenesis imperfectaMutationMedicineSanger sequencingInternal medicineGeneticsScoliosisOsteoporosisEndocrinologyBiologySurgeryPathologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) type V is an autosomal dominant bone fragility disorder that we had described a decade ago. Recent research has shown that OI type V is caused by a recurrent c.-14C>T mutation in IFITM5. In the present study, we assessed all patients diagnosed with OI type V at our institutions for the presence of the IFITM5 mutation. METHODS: IFITM5 exon 1 was analysed by Sanger sequencing in genomic DNA from 42 patients with OI type V (age: 2-67 years; 18 female). RESULTS: The c.-14C>T mutation of IFITM5 was detected in all individuals. Indicators of disease severity varied widely: Height z-scores (n=38) ranged from -8.7 to -0.1, median -3.5. Median final height was 147 cm in men (N=15) and 145 cm in women (N=10). Lumbar spine areal bone mineral density z-scores in the absence of bisphosphonate treatment (n=29) were between -7.7 and -0.7, median -5.3. Scoliosis was present in 57%, vertebral compression fractures in 90% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the disease-causing mutation is identical among patients with OI type V, the interindividual phenotypic variability is considerable.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations117
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical GeneticsSame topicConnective tissue disorders researchFrench-language works237,207