MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608007535 · doi:10.1177/1203475417708163

Mosaic Neurofibromatosis Type 1 in Children: A Single-Institution Experience

2017· article· en· W2608007535 on OpenAlexaffabout
Irene Lara‐Corrales, Mitra Moazzami, María Teresa García‐Romero, Elena Pope, Patricia C. Parkin, Andrea Shugar, Pekka Kannus

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma Cases
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeurofibromatosisMosaicDermatologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is a neurocutaneous disorder caused by loss-of-function mutation in the NF1 gene. Segmental or mosaic NF1 (MNF) is an uncommon presentation of the NF1 result of postzygotic mutations that present with subtle localised clinical findings. OBJECTIVES: Our study's objectives were to describe the clinical characteristics of children with MNF. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of children diagnosed with MNF at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada, from January 1992 to September 2012. Data were abstracted from health records and analysed using a standardised data collection form approved by our hospital Research Ethics Board. RESULTS: We identified 60 patients with MNF; 32 of 60 (53.3%) were female. Mean ± SD age at first assessment was 10.6 ± 4.6 years. The most common initial physical manifestation in 39 of 60 (65.0%) patients was localised pigmentary changes only, followed by plexiform neurofibromas only in 10 of 60 (16.7%) and neurofibromas only in 9 of 60 (15.0%). Unilateral findings were seen in 46 of 60 (76.7%) patients. Most common associations identified included learning disabilities (7/60; 12%) and bony abnormalities (6/60; 10.0%). CONCLUSIONS: MNF is an underrecognised condition with potential implications for patients. Children mostly present with pigmentary anomalies only. Most patients do not develop associated findings or complications before adulthood, but long-term follow-up will help determine outcomes and possible associations. Recognition and confirmation of the diagnosis is important to provide follow-up and genetic counselling to patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma CasesFrench-language works237,207