MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087505525 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000010882

DYT-TUBB4A (DYT4 Dystonia)

2020· article· pl· W3087505525 on OpenAlexaff
Julien F. Bally, Sarah Camargos, Camila Oliveira dos Santos, Drew S. Kern, Teresa Lee, Francisco Pereira da Silva‐Júnior, Renato Puga, Francisco Cardoso, Egberto Reis Barbosa, Rachita Yadav, Laurie J. Ozelius, Patrícia de Carvalho Aguiar, Anthony E. Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2020
Typearticle
Languagepl
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological diseases and metabolism
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsDystoniaCervical dystoniaPenetranceMedicineBiologyGeneticsPhenotypeGenePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: mutations leading to laryngeal and cervical dystonia with frequent generalization. METHODS: We screened 4 families including a total of 11 definitely affected members with a clinical picture resembling the original description. RESULTS: gene have been identified: D295N, R46M, Q424H, and R121W. In silico modeling showed that all variants have characteristics similar to R2G. The variants segregate with the disease in 3 of the families with evidence of incomplete penetrance in 2 of them. All 4 variants would be classified as likely pathogenic. The clinical picture particularly included laryngeal dystonia (often the site of onset), associated with cervical and upper limb dystonia and frequent generalization. Laryngeal dystonia was extremely prevalent (>90%) both in the original cases and in this case series. The hobby horse gait was evident in only 1 patient in this case series. CONCLUSIONS: mutations remain an exceedingly rare cause of laryngeal or other isolated dystonia.

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.270
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicNeurological diseases and metabolismFrench-language works237,207