MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281258467 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.62782

A 79‐kb paternally inherited 7q32.2 microdeletion involving <scp><i>MEST</i></scp> in a patient with a <scp>Silver‐Russell</scp> syndrome‐like phenotype

2022· article· en· W4281258467 on OpenAlexaff
Krista M. Vincent, Dimitri J. Stavropoulos, Melanie Beaulieu‐Bergeron, Yang Chen, Mary Jiang, Caroline Zuijdwijk, David A. Dyment, Gail E. Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenotypeGeneticsGenomic imprintingUniparental disomyBiologyImprinting (psychology)GeneChromosomeDNA methylationKaryotypeGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maternal uniparental disomy of human chromosome 7 [upd(7)mat] is well-characterized as a cause of the growth disorder Silver-Russell syndrome (SRS). However, the causative gene is not currently known. There is growing evidence that molecular changes at the imprinted MEST region in 7q32.2 are associated with a phenotype evocative of SRS. This report details a patient with a SRS-like phenotype and a paternally inherited microdeletion of 79 kilobases (35-fold smaller than the previously reported smallest deletion) in the 7q32.2 region. This microdeletion encompasses only five genes, including MEST, which corroborates the hypothesis that MEST plays a central role in the 7q32.2 microdeletion growth disorder, as well as further implicating MEST in upd(7)mat SRS itself.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.220
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicGenetic Syndromes and ImprintingFrench-language works237,207