Human equivalent of mouse disorganization: Has the case been made?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temtamy and McKusick suggested mouse disorganization (Ds) as a model for human tibial agenesis, fibular duplication and mirror foot, but the concurrent papers by Winter and Donnai and Donnai and Winter in 1989 kindled interest and led to continued reports of patients hypothesized as human equivalent of Ds (HEDs). Subsequent reports have tended to follow one or other of the two categories outlined; (1) band/constriction with additional anomalies unexplained by bands (ABS); (2) patterns of malformation interpreted as resembling mouse Ds (non-ABS). A review of a series of cases led to a re-read of the original Ds mouse reports by Hummel in 1958 and 1959 and examination of current literature in an attempt to assess the strength of the argument that the patients might represent HEDs. Key to the approach was a paragraph in Hummel's introduction; "some of the developmental anomalies … from action of Ds are similar to those caused by other …genes…teratogens… others are unique…" The corollary is a patient is likelier to represent human DS if the anomaly(s) match these unique malformations/patterns. Presence of anomalies not specifically noted in Ds would weaken the argument for human equivalence. Reports of possible HEDs were ascertained using PubMed and literature cited by authors subsequent to the 1989 papers, up to and including January, 2010. This paper gives an overview of HEDs patients reported and concludes that the ABS type, even with non-band associated anomalies, is not likely to often represent HEDs. Many non-ABS HEDs patients had equally valid alternative hypothesis or diagnoses, malformations unreported or unusual for the Ds mouse, and/or paucity of the more unusual anomalies of the Ds mouse.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".