MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136290615 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.36397

Amyoplasia involving only the upper limbs or only involving the lower limbs with review of the relevant differential diagnoses

2014· article· en· W2136290615 on OpenAlexaff
Judith G. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArthrogryposisEtiologyMedicineLower limbDifferential diagnosisPediatricsUpper limbGynecologySurgeryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Of individuals with Amyoplasia, 16.8% (94/560) involve only the upper limbs (Upper Limb Amyoplasia-ULA) and 15.2% (85/560) involve only the lower limbs (Lower Limb Amyoplasia-LLA). The accompanying paper deals with other forms of Amyoplasia [Hall et al., 2013] and discusses etiology. An excess of one of monozygotic (MZ) twins is seen in both groups (ULA 4/94 (4.3%), LLA 5/85 (5.9%)), gastrointestinal (GI) abnormalities thought to be of vascular origin (bowel atresia and gastroschisis) (ULA 16/94 (17%), LLA 4/85 (4.7%)), small or partial absence of digits (ULA 6/94 (6.2%), LLA 8/85 (9.4%)), and umbilical cord wrapping around the limbs at birth (ULA 3/94 (3.2%), LLA 7/85 (8.2%)) (severe enough to leave a permanent groove). Pregnancy complications occurred in 42/60 (70%) of ULA and 36/54 (67%) of LLA. Prenatal diagnosis, after ultrasound usage became routine, occurred in only 7/25 (28%) of ULA and 5/12 (12%) of LLA. This series may represent an over estimate of the complications and associations occurring in ULA and LLA. Differential diagnoses separating LLA from the genetic forms of "lower limb only" arthrogryposis and ULA from "upper limb only" genetic forms of arthrogryposis and Erb's palsy is provided.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicCongenital Anomalies and Fetal SurgeryFrench-language works237,207