MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2777998104 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.38570

Severe rhizomelic shortening in a child with a complex duplication/deletion rearrangement of chromosome X

2017· article· en· W2777998104 on OpenAlexaff
Ashish R. Deshwar, Lucie Dupuis, Carsten Bergmann, James Stavropoulos, Roberto Mendoza‐Londono

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXq28Gene duplicationX chromosomeKaryotypeX-inactivationGeneticsChromosomal rearrangementBiologyAnatomyChromosomeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mesomelic and rhizo-mesomelic dysplasias are a group of disorders characterized by abnormal shortening of the limbs. One of the most common causes of mesomelic shortening is the loss of the transcription factor SHOX. In this clinical report, we present a patient who in addition to mesomelic shortening has severe rhizomelic shortening and developmental delay. Karyotyping revealed a recombinant X chromosome in which the region distal to Xp22.33 (where SHOX is found) was replaced with material from Xq28. Included in the region distal to Xq28 is the gene MECP2 and this patient presents with features of MECP2 duplication syndrome. We find that this patient has skeletal features not typical with the loss of SHOX that are likely explained by the rearrangement of the X chromosome. Further delineation of this rearrangement may allow for the identification of additional genetic mechanisms critical for the development of the limbs.

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)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207