MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153457297 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.37134

Deletion of 15q11.2(BP1‐BP2) region: Further evidence for lack of phenotypic specificity in a pediatric population

2015· article· en· W2153457297 on OpenAlexafffund
Bita Hashemi, Anne S. Bassett, David Chitayat, Karen Chong, Mark Feldman, Janine Flanagan, Sharan Goobie, Anne Kawamura, Chelsea Lowther, Chitra Prasad, Victoria Mok Siu, Joyce So, Sharon Tung, Marsha Speevak, Dimitri J. Stavropoulos, Melissa T. Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalWestern UniversitySt Joseph's Health CentreMount Sinai HospitalCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthInnovation Initiatives Ontario NorthUniversity Health NetworkChildren's Hospital of Western OntarioUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsCopy-number variationPhenotypePresentation (obstetrics)PopulationMedicinePediatricsGeneticsBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microdeletion of the BP1-BP2 region at 15q11.2 is a recurrent copy number variant (CNV) frequently found in patients undergoing chromosomal microarray (CMA). Genetic counselling regarding this CNV is challenging due to the wide range of phenotypic presentation in reported patients and lack of general population-based data. As one of the most common reasons for CMA is childhood developmental delay, clinicians need to be cognizant of the inherent ascertainment bias in the literature. We performed a detailed medical record review for 55 patients with this 15q11.2 microdeletion and report the clinical features of the 35 patients for whom information was available. We compared our results to the recent report by Cafferkey et al. in this journal. Our conclusion is that the phenotypic spectrum is too broad and non-specific to constitute a bona fide "syndrome" and that further research must be done to delineate the contribution of this CNV to phenotype.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations69
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207