MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092849481 · doi:10.1002/mds.28279

Reply to: “Dopa‐Responsive Parkinsonism in a Patient With Homozygous RFC1 Expansions”

2020· letter· en· W3092849481 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Roisin Sullivan, Wai Yan Yau, Viorica Chelban, Salvatore Rossi, Emer O’Connor, Nicholas Wood, Andrea Cortese, Henry Houlden

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilMedical Research Council CanadaRosetrees TrustAtaxia UKNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMultiple System Atrophy TrustWellcome Trust
KeywordsParkinsonismNeuroscienceMedicinePsychologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We would like to thank da Silva Schmitt and colleagues for their response to our publication concerning the RFC1 repeat expansion in pathologically confirmed multiple systems atrophy.1 da Silva Schmitt and colleagues describe an interesting patient who presents with dopa-responsive parkinsonism and is positive for the RFC1 AAGGG repeat expansion on triplet-repeat primed polymerase chain reaction (TP-PCR). The parkinsonian symptoms manifested as bradykinesia, resting tremor, and stiffness and were supported by a reduction of dopaminergic transporters uptake in bilateral striatum in the dopamine transporter scan. Interestingly, the patient demonstrated impaired vestibulo-ocular reflexes bilaterally and a 20-year history of a chronic dry cough and sensory neuropathy, which are all main features of cerebellar ataxia, neuropathy, vestibular areflexia syndrome (CANVAS). In addition, the patient did not present with autonomic features, rapid eye movement behavior disorder, and hypo/anosmia, conflicting a diagnosis of classical Parkinson's disease. Although da Silva Schmitt and colleagues ruled out other relevant variants using whole-exome sequencing, and TP-PCR yielded a positive result, it is important to confirm all TP-PCR positive cases with Southern blotting. Southern blotting TP-PCR positive cases rules out carriers and false positives. It also allows for the accurate sizing of the expansion, which would be interesting in this case because of the phenotypic differences seen in this patient.2 Since the identification of RFC1 expansions in CANVAS we have seen this disorder as a clinical spectrum.3 This ranges from mild ataxia with sensory neuropathy, to the CANVAS clinical syndrome, through to a more rapidly progressive ataxia with parkinsonism, autonomic dysfunction, and an abnormal dopamine transporter scan; a clinical overlap between CANVAS and multiple systems atrophy, with RFC1 expansions on repeat-primed PCR and Southern blotting (unpublished data). We predict that the phenotypic spectrum associated with the RFC1 repeat expansion is likely to be broader than previously described as in the report of da Silva Schmitt and colleagues. It would therefore be of great importance to screen larger cohorts of patients, particularly in cohorts of different ethnic origins with atypical and even typical parkinsonism, as well as ataxic disorders for the RFC1 expansion, to confirm its prevalence and further define the RFC1 clinical spectrum. We thank all patients and families for their support as well as clinical and laboratory collaborators who are essential to our work. We are grateful for support from The Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, the Rosetree Trust, Ataxia UK, the Multiple Systems Atrophy Trust, The Multiple Systems Atrophy Coalition, and The National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. (1) Research Project: A. Conception, B. Organization, C. Execution; (2) Statistical Analysis: A. Design, B. Execution, C. Review and Critique; (3) Manuscript: A. First Draft, B. Review and Critique. R.S.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B. W.Y.: 1B, 1C, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B V.C.: 1C, 3A, 3B S.R.: 1C, 3A, 3B E.O.C.: 3A, 3B N.W.: 3A, 3B A.C.: 1A, 2C, 3A, 3B H.H.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207