MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597574808 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.38139

Quantitative phenotypic and network analysis of 1q44 microdeletion for microcephaly

2017· article· en· W2597574808 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Raun, Janette Mailo, Egidio Spinelli, Xu He, Sarah McAvena, Logan Brand, Julia O’Sullivan, John Andersen, Lawrence Richer, Richard Tang‐Wai, François V. Bolduc

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrocephalyGeneticsBiologyPhenotypeCopy-number variationGeneGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As genome wide techniques become more common, an increasing proportion of patients with intellectual disability (ID) are found to have genetic defects allowing genotype-phenotype correlations. Previously, AKT3 deletion was suggested to be responsible for microcephaly in patients with 1q43-q44 deletion syndrome, but this does not correspond to all cases. We report a case of a de novo 1q44 deletion in an 8-year-old boy with microcephaly in whom AKT3 is not deleted. We used a systematic review of the literature, our patient, and network analysis to gain a better understanding of the genetic basis of microcephaly in 1q deletion patients. Our analysis showed that while AKT3 deletion is associated with more severe (≤3 SD) microcephaly in 1q43-q44 deletion patients, other genes may contribute to microcephaly in AKT3 intact patients with microcephaly and 1q43-44 deletion syndrome. We identified a potential role for HNRNPU, SMYD3, NLRP3, and KIF26B in microcephaly. Overall, our study highlights the need for network analysis and quantitative measures reporting in the phenotypic analysis of a complex genetic syndrome related to copy number variation.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 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

Citations48
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207