Prevalence and Clinical Implication of Double Mutations in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background— Available data suggests that double mutations in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy are not rare and are associated with a more severe phenotype. Most of this data, however, is based on noncontemporary variant classification. Methods and Results— Clinical data of all hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients with 2 rare genetic variants were retrospectively reviewed and compared with a group of patients with a single disease-causing variant. Furthermore, a literature search was performed for all studies with information on prevalence and outcome of patients with double mutations. Classification of genetic variants was reanalyzed according to current guidelines. In our cohort (n=1411), 9% of gene-positive patients had 2 rare variants in sarcomeric genes but only in 1 case (0.4%) were both variants classified as pathogenic. Patients with 2 rare variants had a trend toward younger age at presentation when compared with patients with a single mutation. All other clinical variables were similar. In data pooled from cohort studies in the literature, 8% of gene-positive patients were published to have double mutations. However, after reanalysis of reported variants, this prevalence diminished to 0.4%. All patients with 2 radical mutations in MYBPC3 in the literature had severe disease with death or heart transplant during the first year of life. Data on other specific genotype–phenotype correlations were scarce. Conclusions— Double mutations in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy are much less common than previously estimated. With the exception of double radical MYBPC3 mutations, there is little data to guide clinical decision making in cases with double mutations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".