MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169055103 · doi:10.1002/humu.21480

BBS genotype-phenotype assessment of a multiethnic patient cohort calls for a revision of the disease definition

2011· article· en· W2169055103 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Deveault, Gail Billingsley, Jacque L. Duncan, Jenea M. Bin, Rebecca Theal, Ajoy Vincent, Karen Fieggen, Christina Gerth‐Kahlert, Nima Noordeh, Elias I. Traboulsi, Gerald A. Fishman, David Chitayat, Tanja Knueppel, José M. Millán, Francis L. Munier, Debra Kennedy, Samuel G. Jacobson, A. Micheil Innes, Grant A. Mitchell, Kym M. Boycott, Elise Héon

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Mutation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Kidney Cyst Diseases
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of OttawaHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Eye Institute
KeywordsCiliopathyCiliopathiesBardet–Biedl syndromePolydactylyBiologyCohortDiseaseGeneticsPhenotypeGenotypeNephronophthisisBioinformaticsGeneInternal medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bardet-Biedl syndrome (BBS) is a ciliopathy characterized by retinal degeneration, obesity, polydactyly, renal abnormalities, and cognitive impairment for which 15 causative genes have been identified. Here we present the results of a mutational analysis of our multiethnic cohort of 83 families (105 cases); 75.9% of them have their mutations identified including 26 novel changes. Comprehensive phenotyping of these patients demonstrate that the spectrum of clinical features is greater than expected and overlapped with the features of other ciliopathies; specifically Alström and McKusick-Kauffman syndromes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 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

Citations126
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman MutationSame topicGenetic and Kidney Cyst DiseasesFrench-language works237,207