MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041261123 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.61740

A novel intronic variant in <scp><i>UBE3A</i></scp> identified by genome sequencing in a patient with an atypical presentation of Angelman syndrome

2020· article· en· W3041261123 on OpenAlexafffund
Meredith Curtis, Danielle Baribeau, Susan Walker, Melissa Carter, Gregory Costain, Sylvia Lamoureux, Eriskay Liston, Christian R. Marshall, Miriam S. Reuter, Meaghan Snell, Jane Summers, Jacob Vorstman, Rebekah Jobling

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAngelman syndromeUBE3AGeneticsNeurodevelopmental disorderBiologyRNA splicingAlleleGenetic testingPresentation (obstetrics)RNAMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Angelman syndrome (AS) is a genetic neurodevelopmental disorder caused by loss or deficient expression of UBE3A on the maternally inherited allele. In 10-15% of individuals with a clinical diagnosis of AS, a molecular diagnosis cannot be established with conventional testing. We describe a 13-year-old male with an atypical presentation of AS, who was found to have a novel, maternally inherited, intronic variant in UBE3A (c.3-12T>A) using genome sequencing (GS). Targeted sequencing of RNA isolated from blood confirmed the creation of a new acceptor splice site. These GS results ended a six-year diagnostic odyssey and revealed a 50% recurrence risk for the unaffected parents. This case illustrates a previously unreported splicing variant causing AS. Intronic variants identifiable by GS may account for a proportion of individuals who are suspected of having well-known genetic disorders despite negative prior genetic testing.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicGenetic Syndromes and ImprintingFrench-language works237,207