MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2375961688 · doi:10.1038/ejhg.2016.45

EMQN best practice guidelines for the molecular genetic testing and reporting of chromosome 11p15 imprinting disorders: Silver–Russell and Beckwith–Wiedemann syndrome

2016· article· en· W2375961688 on OpenAlexaff
Katja Eggermann, Jet Bliek, Frédéric Brioude, Elizabeth M. Algar, Karin Buiting, Silvia Russo, Zeynep Tümer, David Monk, Gudrun E. Moore, Thalia Antoniadi, Fiona MacDonald, Irène Netchine, Paolo Lombardi, Lukas Soellner, Matthias Begemann, Dirk Prawitt, Eamonn R. Maher, Marcel M. A. M. Mannens, Andrea Riccio, Rosanna Weksberg, Pablo Lapunzina, Karen Grønskov, Deborah Mackay, Thomas Eggermann

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Human Genetics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsBeckwith–Wiedemann syndromeImprinting (psychology)GuidelineBest practiceGenetic testingContext (archaeology)Snapshot (computer storage)Genomic imprintingMedicinePsychologyComputer scienceGeneticsBiologyPolitical sciencePathologyGeneLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular genetic testing for the 11p15-associated imprinting disorders Silver-Russell and Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (SRS, BWS) is challenging because of the molecular heterogeneity and complexity of the affected imprinted regions. With the growing knowledge on the molecular basis of these disorders and the demand for molecular testing, it turned out that there is an urgent need for a standardized molecular diagnostic testing and reporting strategy. Based on the results from the first external pilot quality assessment schemes organized by the European Molecular Quality Network (EMQN) in 2014 and in context with activities of the European Network of Imprinting Disorders (EUCID.net) towards a consensus in diagnostics and management of SRS and BWS, best practice guidelines have now been developed. Members of institutions working in the field of SRS and BWS diagnostics were invited to comment, and in the light of their feedback amendments were made. The final document was ratified in the course of an EMQN best practice guideline meeting and is in accordance with the general SRS and BWS consensus guidelines, which are in preparation. These guidelines are based on the knowledge acquired from peer-reviewed and published data, as well as observations of the authors in their practice. However, these guidelines can only provide a snapshot of current knowledge at the time of manuscript submission and readers are advised to keep up with the literature.

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)0.115
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.258
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1150.258
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0110.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0100.006
Research integrity0.0160.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.012

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations86
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Human GeneticsSame topicGenetic Syndromes and ImprintingFrench-language works237,207