MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225093755 · doi:10.1177/2329048x221093173

Genetic Generalized Epilepsy and Intrafamilial Phenotypic Variability with Distal 7q11.23 Deletion

2022· article· en· W4225093755 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Neurology Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicWilliams Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Children's HospitalMcGill University
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéInstitut de recherche, Centre universitaire de santé McGill
KeywordsPhenotypeGlobal developmental delayGeneEpilepsyGenetic heterogeneityIntellectual disabilityInheritance (genetic algorithm)Generalized epilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Distal 7q11.23 deletions are variably associated with epilepsy, intellectual disability and neurobehavioural abnormalities. The relative importance of different genes in this region in contributing to different phenotypes is not clear, though HIP1 and YWHAG are both thought to play important roles. Patients and Methods: We performed thorough phenotyping on members of a family in which multiple members carried a relatively small 0.8 Mb distal 7q11.23 deletion, affecting 17 genes. Results: Two brothers and a half-brother had all inherited the 7q11.23 deletion from their mother. The eldest two both had global developmental impairment and genetic generalized epilepsy, involving absence, myoclonic or myoclonic-atonic seizures. There was no history of seizures in the mother or her youngest son, but both also had developmental impairment. Conclusion: Distal 7q11.23 deletions affecting HIP1 and YWHAG may cause developmental impairment and genetic generalized epilepsy, with considerable intrafamilial phenotypic variability.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Neurology OpenSame topicWilliams Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207