Refining nosology by modelling variation among facial phenotypes: the RASopathies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In clinical genetics, establishing an accurate nosology requires analysis of variations in both aetiology and the resulting phenotypes. At the phenotypic level, recognising typical facial gestalts has long supported clinical and molecular diagnosis; however, the objective analysis of facial phenotypic variation remains underdeveloped. In this work, we propose exploratory strategies for assessing facial phenotypic variation within and among clinical and molecular disease entities and deploy these techniques on cross-sectional samples of four RASopathies: Costello syndrome (CS), Noonan syndrome (NS), cardiofaciocutaneous syndrome (CFC) and neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). METHODS: From three-dimensional dense surface scans, we model the typical phenotypes of the four RASopathies as average 'facial signatures' and assess individual variation in terms of direction (what parts of the face are affected and in what ways) and severity of the facial effects. We also derive a metric of phenotypic agreement between the syndromes and a metric of differences in severity along similar phenotypes. RESULTS: CFC shows a relatively consistent facial phenotype in terms of both direction and severity that is similar to CS and NS, consistent with the known difficulty in discriminating CFC from NS based on the face. CS shows a consistent directional phenotype that varies in severity. Although NF1 is highly variable, on average, it shows a similar phenotype to CS. CONCLUSIONS: We established an approach that can be used in the future to quantify variations in facial phenotypes between and within clinical and molecular diagnoses to objectively define and support clinical nosologies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".