MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Robust Screening and Cascade Testing for Fragile X Expansions in a Large Multigenerational Family Identify Many Affected Individuals: An Experience in the Remote Area of Indonesia

2020· article· en· W3006199157 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Agustini Utari, Kirin Basuta, Tri Indah Winarni, Joyce Lo, Guadalupe Mendoza Morales, Sultana MH Faradz, Flora Tassone

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disability - Diagnosis and Treatment · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCascadeFragile X syndromePsychologyEngineeringPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) is the most common known inherited form of intellectual disability (ID), caused by a CGG repeat expansion of the FMR1 gene. The aimed of the study was to screen FMR1 mutation among the ID population followed by cascade testing in a remote area. A PCR-based method was used to screen FMR1 expanded alleles using dried blood spot cards in Flores Island, one of the very remote areas in East Indonesia. The screening included 130 males and 81 females from three schools of children with ID. The screening identified three individuals with expanded alleles including two full mutation males and one premutation male. No expanded allele was detected in females. A second blood sample for confirmatory diagnosis was done using Southern blot. Cascade testing in a remote area of Indonesia found a multigenerational family with a large number of cases with FXS. FXS screening of ID populations followed by cascade testing in positive FXS family in a remote area with challenging accessibility is recommended.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual Disability - Diagnosis and TreatmentSame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207