MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A new association of congenital hydrocephalus, albinism, megalocornea, and retinal coloboma in a syndromic child: A clinical and genetic study

2000· article· en· W2151071953 on OpenAlexaff
Prabhatchandra Dube, Der Kaloustian Vm, Suzanne Demczuk, H. Saabti, R K Koenekoop

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic Genetics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlbinismColobomaHydrocephalusRetinalVentriculomegalyMonosomyBiologyMedicineOphthalmologyGeneticsSurgeryGeneKaryotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a child with global developmental delay, prominent metopic suture, trigonocephaly, and cryptorchidism whose symptoms resemble the well-known 9p deletion syndrome or 9p monosomy. We also noted congenital hydrocephalus, oculocutaneous albinism, retinal coloboma, and megalocornea, which are not typical features of 9p monosomy. When a new albinism gene was localized to 9p (Chintamaneni et al., Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1991;178:227-235; Murty et al., Genomics 1992;13:227-229), we hypothesized that our patient had the 9p deletion syndrome plus albinism, with the deletion involving the albinism gene. We used FISH probes to test this hypothesis and found that the 9p region was normal, therefore excluding the 9p deletion syndrome. To our knowledge, the association of congenital hydrocephalus, albinism, megalocornea, and retinal coloboma has not been described in the literature. The purpose of this report is to describe this new association of congenital ocular and cerebral anomalies in a syndromic child.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations7
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmic GeneticsSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207