Cardio‐facio‐cutaneous syndrome: Does genotype predict phenotype?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardio-facio-cutaneous (CFC) syndrome is a sporadic multiple congenital anomalies/mental retardation condition principally caused by mutations in BRAF, MEK1, and MEK2. Mutations in KRAS and SHOC2 lead to a phenotype with overlapping features. In approximately 10–30% of individuals with a clinical diagnosis of CFC, a mutation in one of these causative genes is not found. Cardinal features of CFC include congenital heart defects, a characteristic facial appearance, and ectodermal abnormalities. Additional features include failure to thrive with severe feeding problems, moderate to severe intellectual disability and short stature with relative macrocephaly. First described in 1986, more than 100 affected individuals are reported. Following the discovery of the causative genes, more information has emerged on the breadth of clinical features. Little, however, has been published on genotype–phenotype correlations. This clinical study of 186 children and young adults with mutation-proven CFC syndrome is the largest reported to date. BRAF mutations are documented in 140 individuals (approximately 75%), while 46 (approximately 25%) have a mutation in MEK 1 or MEK 2. The age range is 6 months to 32 years, the oldest individual being a female from the original report [Reynolds et al. (1986); Am J Med Genet 25:413–427]. While some clinical data on 136 are in the literature, 50 are not previously published. We provide new details of the breadth of phenotype and discuss the frequency of particular features in each genotypic group. Pulmonary stenosis is the only anomaly that demonstrates a statistically significant genotype–phenotype correlation, being more common in individuals with a BRAF mutation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".