MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214080543 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.62556

Ocular findings in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: A systematic literature review and results of a Dutch multicenter study

2021· review· en· W3214080543 on OpenAlexaff
Emma N. M. M. von Scheibler, Emy S. van der Valk Bouman, Myrthe A. Nuijts, Noël J.C. Bauer, Tos T. J. M. Berendschot, Pit Vermeltfoort, Levinus A. Bok, Agnies M. van Eeghen, Michiel L. Houben, Thérèse van Amelsvoort, Erik Boot, Michelle B. van Egmond‐Ebbeling

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Funderss Heeren Loo
KeywordsStrabismusMedicineOrthopticPtosisReferralPediatricsRefractive errorAstigmatismDeletion syndromeOphthalmologyVisual acuity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS) is a multisystem disorder with an estimated prevalence of 1:3000 live births. Manifestations show a marked variability in expression and include speech- and language delay, intellectual disability, and neuropsychiatric disorders. We aim to provide an overview of ocular findings in 22q11.2DS in order to optimize recommendations for ophthalmic screening. We combined results from a systematic literature review with results from a multicenter cross-sectional study of patients with 22q11.2DS who were assessed by an ophthalmologist. Our systematic literature search yielded four articles, describing 270 patients. We included 132 patients in our cross-sectional study (median age 8.9 [range 0-56] years). Most reported ocular findings were retinal vascular tortuosity (32%-78%), posterior embryotoxon (22%-50%), eye lid hooding (20%-67%), strabismus (12%-36%), amblyopia (2%-11%), ptosis (4%-6%), and refractive errors, of which hyperopia (6%-48%) and astigmatism (3%-23%) were most common. Visual acuity was (near) normal in most patients (91%-94%). Refractive errors, strabismus, and amblyopia are treatable conditions that are frequently present in patients with 22q11.2DS and should be corrected at an early stage. Therefore, in 22q11.2DS, we recommend ophthalmic and orthoptic screening at the age of 3 years or at diagnosis, and a low-threshold referral in adults.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0190.023
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207