MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385604954 · doi:10.1101/2023.07.30.23293380

Intronic <i>FGF14</i> GAA repeat expansions are a common cause of downbeat nystagmus syndromes: frequency, phenotypic profile, and 4-aminopyridine treatment response

2023· preprint· en· W4385604954 on OpenAlexafffund
David Pellerin, Felix Heindl, Carlo Wilke, Matt C. Danzi, Andreas Traschütz, Catherine Ashton, Marie‐Josée Dicaire, Alexanne Cuillerier, Giulia Gobbo, Kym M. Boycott, Jens Claaßen, Dan Rujescu, Annette M. Hartmann, Stephan Züchner, Bernard Brais, Michael Strupp, Matthis Synofzik

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre de réadaptation Lethbridge-Layton-MackayChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioMcGill UniversityUniversity of OttawaMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNational Institutes of HealthFondation de l'Hôpital Général de MontréalBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftGénome QuébecCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchElse Kröner-Fresenius-StiftungGenome CanadaOntario GenomicsOntario Genomics Institute
KeywordsMedicineAtaxiaCohortInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The cause of downbeat nystagmus (DBN) remains unknown in approximately 30% of patients (idiopathic DBN). Here, we hypothesized that: (i) FGF14 (GAA) ≥250 repeat expansions represent a frequent genetic cause of idiopathic DBN syndromes, (ii) are treatable with 4-aminopyridine (4-AP), and (iii) FGF14 (GAA) 200-249 alleles are potentially pathogenic. We conducted a multi-modal cohort study of 170 patients with idiopathic DBN that comprised: in-depth ocular motor, neurological, and disease evolution phenotyping; assessment of 4-AP treatment response, including re-analysis of placebo-controlled video-oculography treatment response data from a previous randomized double-blind 4-AP trial; and genotyping of the FGF14 repeat. Frequency of FGF14 (GAA) ≥250 expansions was 48% (82/170) in the entire idiopathic DBN cohort. Additional cerebellar ocular motor signs were observed in 100% (82/82), cerebellar ataxia in 43% (35/82), and extracerebellar features in 21% (17/82) of (GAA) ≥250 - FGF14 patients. Alleles of 200 to 249 GAA repeats were enriched in patients with DBN (12%; 20/170) compared to controls (0.87%; 19/2,191; OR, 15.20; 95% CI, 7.52-30.80; p =9.876e-14). The phenotype of (GAA) 200-249 - FGF14 patients closely mirrored that of (GAA) ≥250 - FGF14 patients. (GAA) ≥250 - FGF14 and (GAA) 200-249 - FGF14 patients had a significantly greater clinician-reported (80% vs 31%; p =0.0011) and self-reported (59% vs 11%; p =0.0003) response rate to 4-AP treatment compared to (GAA) <200 - FGF14 patients. This included a treatment response with high relevance to everyday living, as exemplified by an improvement of 2 FARS stages in some cases. Placebo-controlled video-oculography data of four (GAA) ≥250 - FGF14 patients previously enrolled in a 4-AP randomized double-blind trial showed a significant decrease in slow phase velocity of DBN with 4-AP, but not placebo. This study shows that FGF14 GAA repeat expansions are a highly frequent genetic cause of DBN syndromes, especially when associated with additional cerebellar features. Moreover, they genetically stratify a subgroup of patients with DBN that appear to be highly responsive to 4-AP, thus paving the way for a “theranostics” approach in DBN syndromes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207