MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4328049751 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.63175

De novo triplication at 1p36.23p36.22 further refines the dosage sensitive region of overlap in Setleis syndrome (focal facial dermal dysplasia type <scp>III</scp>)

2023· article· en· W4328049751 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Youjin Oh, Kathy Chun, Paul E. Kowalski, David Chitayat

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSkin and Cellular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysplasiaMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Setleis syndrome (SS), or focal facial dermal dysplasia type III (FFDD3, MIM #227260), is an autosomal recessive condition caused by biallelic loss-of-function variants in TWIST2. It is characterized by bitemporal atrophic skin lesions and distinctive facial features. Individuals with de novo or inherited duplication or triplication of the chromosomal region 1p36.22p36.21 have also been reported to have the SS phenotype with additional neurodevelopmental challenges (rarely seen in individuals with TWIST2 mutations) and variable expressivity and penetrance. Triplication of this region is also associated with more severe manifestations compared to a duplication. We report a 2-year-old female patient with features of SS associated with a de novo 3.603 Mb triplication at 1p36.23p36.22 identified on postnatal microarray analysis. Her triplication shares a 281.263 kb overlap with gains at 1p36.22, reported by previous groups, delineating the shortest region of overlap (SRO) to date. This SRO involves 10 RefSeq and 4 OMIM morbid map genes and highlights the candidate dosage-sensitive element(s) underlying the cardinal features of SS phenotype in individuals with gains at 1p36.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicSkin and Cellular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207