MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006870322 · doi:10.1097/ico.0000000000002287

Allgrove Syndrome: A Report of New Pathological Variants in the AAAS Gene

2020· article· en· W3006870322 on OpenAlexaff
Samir Jabbour, Patrick Hamel, Jean-François Soucy, Luis H. Ospina

Bibliographic record

VenueCornea · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnisocoriaAchalasiaAdrenal insufficiencyGenetic testingAdrenocorticotropic hormoneCompound heterozygosityPediatricsPathologyInternal medicineAlleleHormonePsychologyGeneticsEsophagusGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To report 2 novel variants in the AAAS gene consistent with the diagnosis of Allgrove syndrome. METHODS: A 12-year-old girl was referred to our clinic for progressive bilateral decrease in visual acuity. She was known for achalasia that had been surgically treated at a very early age. On examination, she was found to have dry eye disease secondary to lacrimal insufficiency. She also had anisocoria, light-near dissociation, and bilateral optic nerve atrophy. RESULTS: Neurological examination and brain magnetic resonance imaging were within normal limits. Genetic workup revealed compound heterozygosity for 2 novel variants in the AAAS gene, confirming the diagnosis of Allgrove syndrome. The patient was referred to endocrinology to screen for adrenocorticotropic hormone insufficiency. She was started on topical lubricating therapy that improved her symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Allgrove syndrome is a rare genetic disease that is characterized by the triad of achalasia, alacrima, and adrenal insufficiency. Early diagnosis, confirmed with genetic testing, is essential to initiate an appropriate follow-up and prevent a life-threatening addisonian crisis. Report of novel mutations is important to further characterize this 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorneaSame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207