MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519069601 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.37961

Growth charts for individuals with rhizomelic chondrodysplasia punctata

2016· article· en· W2519069601 on OpenAlexaff
Angela L. Duker, Tim Niiler, Grant Eldridge, Nga Brereton, Nancy Braverman, Michael B. Bober

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA regulation and disease
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChondrodysplasia punctataMedicinePediatricsAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rhizomelic chondrodysplasia punctata (RCDP) is a class of peroxisomal disorders characterized by defective plasmalogen biosynthesis. There are multiple recognized types of RCDP, all of which have autosomal recessive inheritance, and their associated genes are known: RCDP type 1 with PEX7, RCDP type 2 with GNPAT, RCDP type 3 with AGPS, RCDP type 4 with FAR1, and RCDP type 5 with PEX5. Among other medical/developmental issues, plasmalogen deficiency has a direct effect on bone growth and results in postnatal growth failure, the severity of which corresponds to the degree of plasmalogen deficiency. In order to document growth in patients with RCDP, we present detailed growth curves for length, weight, and head circumference derived from retrospective data from 23 individuals with RCDP types 1 and 2 confirmed by molecular and/or biochemical studies. We stratified growth curves by age as well as by plasmalogen level, with those with higher plasmalogens grouped as "non-classic." The growth charts presented here provide guidance to families and physician caretakers on the natural course of growth in individuals with RCDP during infancy into early childhood, and thus will have particular utility in setting expectations and guiding optimal feeding interventions in this population.© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicRNA regulation and diseaseFrench-language works237,207