MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165751246 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.10870

Teebi hypertelorism syndrome: Report of a family with previously unrecognized findings

2002· article· en· W2165751246 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Chun‐Hui Tsai, Jacqualyn R. Robertson, Ahmad S. Teebi

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypertelorismClinodactylyUmbilical herniaMedicineDaughterPalpebral fissurePtosisOmphaloceleAnatomyMicrophthalmiaPectus excavatumHypotoniaSurgeryPediatricsHerniaBiologyPregnancyFetusGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a family consisting of a mother, a daughter, and a son with Teebi hypertelorism syndrome, including some previously unrecognized manifestations. The clinical findings include a prominent forehead, arched eyebrows, pronounced hypertelorism, long philtrum, mild interdigital webbing, fifth-finger clinodactyly, umbilical anomalies, and hypotonia. The mother and daughter also had ptosis requiring surgical correction. The daughter has bilateral iridochorioretinal colobomas with high hyperopia and a small umbilical hernia. The son has less striking facial features but was born with a small omphalocele, large ASD secundum, PDA, bilateral cryptorchidism right hydronephrosis, and a cystic left kidney. The mother had an umbilical hernia requiring surgical correction as a child and a history of heart murmur. Both children have normal hearing and mild developmental delay. Their high-resolution karyotypes were normal and the FISH for 22q11 microdeletion was negative in the daughter. We conclude that cardiac defects in Teebi hypertelorism syndrome are not rare findings and that eye colobomas and renal anomalies were previously unrecognized.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations15
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical GeneticsSame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207