MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897104622 · doi:10.1093/jnen/nly093

<i>BRAT1</i>Mutation: The First Reported Case of Chinese Origin and Review of the Literature

2018· review· en· W2897104622 on OpenAlexaff
Randy H Van Ommeren, Andrew Gao, Susan Blasér, David Chitayat, Lili‐Naz Hazrati

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCompound heterozygosityHypertoniaExome sequencingMicrocephalyMutationMissense mutationGeneticsChoreoathetosisDystoniaBiologyPediatricsNeuroscienceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lethal neonatal rigidity and multifocal seizure syndrome (RMFSL) (OMIM#614498) is caused by homozygous or compound heterozygous mutation in the BRAT1 gene (OMIM#614506) on chromosome 7p22. We report a newborn female infant born to non-consanguineous Chinese parents who presented with hypertonia, dysmorphic features, progressive encephalopathy with refractory seizures, and worsening episodic apnea, leading to intubation and eventually death at 10 weeks of age. Whole exome sequencing revealed homozygous BRAT1 mutation, c.1395G>C (p.Thr465Thr), predicted to cause splice site disruption. Neuropathological assessment demonstrated microcephaly, severe neuronal loss, and background gliosis in the dorsal region of the putamen. Disruption of BRAT1 function in RMFSL has been proposed to cause dysfunction in the DNA damage response pathway and impair mitochondrial homeostasis. To our best knowledge this is the first reported case of Chinese origin. We review all published cases with BRAT1 mutation reported in the English literature and known BRAT1 functions which provide insight into the pathophysiology of the disease.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.318
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuropathology & Experimental NeurologySame topicGenomics and Rare DiseasesFrench-language works237,207