MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ring chromosome 22 and autism: Report and review

2000· article· en· W4206491698 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna E. MacLean, Ikuko Teshima, Péter Szatmári, Małgorzata J.M. Nowaczyk

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRing chromosomeSyndactylyKaryotypeHypoplasiaGeneticsChromosomeAutismDevelopmental disorderBiologyX chromosomePsychologyAnatomyPsychiatryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ring chromosome 22 has been described in over 50 cases. A characteristic phenotype has not been fully delineated; however, long face, thick eyebrows, 2–3 toe syndactyly, mental retardation, adequate somatic growth and the absence of major malformations are noted in many cases. An 11-year-old boy with ring chromosome 22 and 46,XY,r(22)(p11.31-q13.31∼q13.33) karyotype presented with global developmental delay, autistic disorder, and dolichocephaly, apparently low-set and large ears, midface hypoplasia, and 2–3 toe syndactyly. This is the second report of a ring chromosome 22 with autistic disorder. There appears to be an association between abnormalities of chromosome 22, including r(22), and autistic disorder; however, this occurrence may be a result of the association of autistic disorder with mental retardation rather than specifically due to r(22). The physical findings in this case also suggest that ring chromosome 22 causes a subtle but distinct phenotype which has previously been proposed. Am. J. Med. Genet. 90:382–385, 2000 © 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical GeneticsSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207