MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383674572 · doi:10.1111/ene.15969

<scp>Genotype–phenotype</scp> relations for episodic ataxia genes: <scp>MDSGene</scp> systematic review

2023· review· en· W4383674572 on OpenAlexaff
Diana A. Olszewska, Aakash Shetty, Rajasumi Rajalingam, J. Muñoz, Moath Hamed, Jana Huang, Marianthi Breza, Ashar Rasheed, Natascha Bahr, Harutyan Madoev, Ana Westenberger, Joanne Trinh, Katja Lohmann, Christine Klein, Connie Marras, Olga Waln

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neurology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenotypeGeneticsGenotypeGeneAtaxiaMedicineExomeBiologyExome sequencingNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Most episodic ataxias (EA) are autosomal dominantly inherited and characterized by recurrent attacks of ataxia and other paroxysmal and non-paroxysmal features. EA is often caused by pathogenic variants in the CACNA1A, KCNA1, PDHA1, and SLC1A3 genes, listed as paroxysmal movement disorders (PxMD) by the MDS Task Force on the Nomenclature of Genetic Movement Disorders. Little is known about the genotype-phenotype correlation of the different genetic EA forms. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify individuals affected by an episodic movement disorder harboring pathogenic variants in one of the four genes. We applied the standardized MDSGene literature search and data extraction protocol to summarize the clinical and genetic features. All data are available via the MDSGene protocol and platform on the MDSGene website (https://www.mdsgene.org/). RESULTS: Information on 717 patients (CACNA1A: 491, KCNA1: 125, PDHA1: 90, and SLC1A3: 11) carrying 287 different pathogenic variants from 229 papers was identified and summarized. We show the profound phenotypic variability and overlap leading to the absence of frank genotype-phenotype correlation aside from a few key 'red flags'. CONCLUSION: Given this overlap, a broad approach to genetic testing using a panel or whole exome or genome approach is most practical in most circumstances.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0120.017
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeurologySame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207