MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807971899 · doi:10.1097/mcd.0000000000000227

Familial impairment of vocal cord mobility in childhood with clubfoot

2018· article· en· W2807971899 on OpenAlexafffund
Rebecca Shaw, Cristina Dias, Jeffrey P. Lüdemann, Rosemarie Rupps, Vance Tsai, Anna Lehman

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Dysmorphology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurogenetic and Muscular Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Children's Hospital
FundersBC Children's HospitalRare Disease Foundation
KeywordsMedicineExome sequencingContext (archaeology)ClubfootCraniofacialGeneticsCandidate geneVocal cord paralysisPhenotypeParalysisGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on a family with three siblings, male and female, affected by congenital bilateral limitation of vocal cord abduction, with the additional finding of clubfeet in two. The paternal family history suggests an autosomal dominant inheritance. The siblings and father also have mild craniofacial features, which may be an expression of variability or may be unrelated. The association between congenital vocal cord paralysis and clubfeet has been reported with additional major features or in the context of Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. However, the two in isolation have only been reported in one other family previously. Genomic analyses of the family, including chromosomal microarray and exome sequencing, showed neither a likely pathogenic variant in a known disease gene nor a compelling candidate gene variant. We propose that the association of these two findings constitutes a novel recognizable phenotype, for which a genetic cause remains undetermined.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical DysmorphologySame topicNeurogenetic and Muscular Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207