MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140186117 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.35381

Germline mosaicism in Cornelia de Lange syndrome

2012· article· en· W2140186117 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas P. Slavin, Noam Lazebnik, Dinah Clark, Jaime Vengoechea, Leslie Cohen, Maninder Kaur, Laura Konczal, Carol A. Crowe, Jane E. Corteville, Małgorzata J.M. Nowaczyk, Janice L. B. Byrne, Laird G. Jackson, Ian D. Krantz

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA modifications and cancer
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsCornelia de Lange SyndromeGermline mosaicismGermlineGermline mutationGeneticsGenetic counselingBiologyMutationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cornelia de Lange syndrome (CdLS) is a genetic disorder associated with delayed growth, intellectual disability, limb reduction defects, and characteristic facial features. Germline mosaicism has been a described mechanism for CdLS when there are several affected offspring of apparently unaffected parents. Presently, the recurrence risk for CdLS has been estimated to be as high as 1.5%; however, this figure may be an underrepresentation. We report on the molecularly defined germline mosaicism cases from a large CdLS database, representing the first large case series on germline mosaicism in CdLS. Of the 12 families, eight have been previously described; however, four have not. No one specific gene mutation, either in the NIPBL or the SMC1A gene, was associated with an increased risk for germline mosaicism. Suspected or confirmed cases of germline mosaicism in our database range from a conservative 3.4% up to 5.4% of our total cohort. In conclusion, the potential reproductive recurrence risk due to germline mosiacism should be addressed in prenatal counseling for all families who have had a previously affected pregnancy or child with CdLS.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations38
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicRNA modifications and cancerFrench-language works237,207