MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142639320 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.36799

Whole exome sequencing identifies a <i>POLRID</i> mutation segregating in a father and two daughters with findings of Klippel–Feil and Treacher Collins syndromes

2014· article· en· W2142639320 on OpenAlexaff
Philip F. Giampietro, Linlea Armstrong, Alex Stoddard, Robert D. Blank, Janet Livingston, Cathy Raggio, Kristen Rasmussen, Michael A. Pickart, Rachel Lorier, Amy Turner, Sarah Sund, Nara Sobrera, Enid Neptune, David A. Sweetser, Alberto Santiago-Cornier, Ulrich Broeckel

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreacher Collins syndromeExome sequencingCraniofacialMutationGeneticsHypoplasiaMedicineHypertelorismBiologyAnatomyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on a father and his two daughters diagnosed with Klippel-Feil syndrome (KFS) but with craniofacial differences (zygomatic and mandibular hypoplasia and cleft palate) and external ear abnormalities suggestive of Treacher Collins syndrome (TCS). The diagnosis of KFS was favored, given that the neck anomalies were the predominant manifestations, and that the diagnosis predated later recognition of the association between spinal segmentation abnormalities and TCS. Genetic heterogeneity and the rarity of large families with KFS have limited the ability to identify mutations by traditional methods. Whole exome sequencing identified a nonsynonymous mutation in POLR1D (subunit of RNA polymerase I and II): exon2:c.T332C:p.L111P. Mutations in POLR1D are present in about 5% of individuals diagnosed with TCS. We propose that this mutation is causal in this family, suggesting a pathogenetic link between KFS and TCS.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207