MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765773037 · doi:10.1177/2329048x17737651

Distal 22q11.2 Microduplication

2017· article· en· W2765773037 on OpenAlexaff
Elana Pinchefsky, Laurence Laneuville, Myriam Srour

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Neurology Open · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneticsProbandPhenotypeBiologyGene duplicationChromosomeCopy-number variationExpressivityGenetic counselingSpeech delayGeneMutationGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distal chromosome 22q11.2 microduplications are associated with a wide range of phenotypes and unclear pathogenicity. The authors report on a 3-year-old girl with global developmental delay harboring a de novo 1.24 Mb distal chromosome 22q11.2 microduplication and a paternally inherited 0.25 Mb chromosome 4p14 microduplication. The authors review clinical features of 30 reported cases of distal 22q11.2 duplications. Common features include developmental delay (93%), neuropsychiatric features (26%), and nonspecific facial dysmorphisms (74%). In 70% of cases, the distal 22q11.2 duplications were inherited, and the majority of the carrier parents were phenotypically normal. Furthermore, 30% of probands carried an additional copy number variant. Review of the phenotype in individuals carrying microduplications involving similar low copy repeats (LCR) failed to establish any clear genotype-phenotype correlations. Distal 22q11.2 duplications represent a major challenge for genetic counseling and prediction of clinical consequences. Our report suggests a pathogenic role of distal 22q11.2 duplications and supports a "multiple hit" hypothesis underlying its variable expressivity and phenotypic severity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Neurology OpenSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207