High‐Risk Screening for Fabry Disease: Analysis by Tandem Mass Spectrometry of Globotriaosylceramide (Gb<sub>3</sub>) in Urine Collected on Filter Paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fabry disease is a complex, panethnic lysosomal storage disorder. It is characterized by the accumulation of glycosphingolipids in tissues, organs, the vascular endothelium, and biological fluids. The reported incidence in different populations is quite variable, ranging from 1:1400 to 1:117,000. Its complexity lies in the marked genotypic and phenotypic heterogeneity. Despite the fact that it is an X‐linked disease, more than 600 mutations affect both males and females. In fact, some females may be affected as severely as males. The purpose of this protocol is to focus on the high‐risk screening of patients who might have Fabry disease using a simple, rapid, non‐invasive high performance liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC‐MS/MS) method for urinary globotriaosylceramide (Gb3) analysis. Urine filter paper samples are easily collected at home by patients and sent by regular mail. This method has been successfully used for high‐risk screening of patients with ophthalmologic manifestations and in an on‐going study for high‐risk screening of Fabry disease in patients with chronic kidney diseases. © 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".