Phenotype–genotype discrepancies in the prospective Huntington at‐risk observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine phenotype-genotype discrepancies (PGDs) wherein genotype-concealed and prospective judgments of the motor onset of Huntington disease (HD) occurred among at-risk adults who had nonexpanded (<37) cytosine-adenine-guanine (CAG) trinucleotide DNA repeats. METHODS: = 1001) at 43 Huntington Study Group research sites in the US and Canada were evaluated prospectively and systematically between 1999 and 2009. At each site, an investigator was designated to perform comprehensive clinic assessments and another investigator to rate only the motor examination. Phenoconversion from a "premanifest" status to a confidently "manifest" status was based on investigator judgment (diagnostic confidence level) of the extrapyramidal motor features of HD. RESULTS: There were 20 PGDs that over time had less severe motor scores than the 101 phenoconversions with CAG ≥37, but more severe motor scores than nonconversions. Following conversion, subjects with CAG ≥37 expansions worsened more motorically and cognitively than PGD subjects in the < 37 group. PGDs were concentrated among three sites and a few investigators, especially raters who only assessed the motor examination. INTERPRETATION: The ability to detect the clinical onset of HD in a timely and reliable fashion remains the key for developing experimental treatments aimed at postponing the clinical onset of HD. Comprehensive clinical evaluation is a more accurate and reliable basis for determining HD clinical onset than sole reliance on judging the extrapyramidal features of HD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".