The ever wider clinical spectrum of RMND1-related disorders and limitedness of phenotype-based classifications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RMND1 has been identified as a mitochondriopathy-associated gene less than 12 years ago. The most common phenotype related to this gene is an early onset, severe form of encephalomyopathy that leads to death in a medium time of three years after birth. However, milder and later onset presentations have been reported in some individuals, including two in whom the mitochondriopathy was identified at ~ 40 years of age, and the early onset presentations have been the object of no reports in those who survived beyond age 10. It is thus unclear how lethal RMND1-related conditions really are. We herein describe the oldest case to have been identified hitherto with this condition, i.e., that of a white female who was 61 at the time of diagnosis but was still active in her everyday life. The gene defect identified was nonetheless associated with many manifestations including ovarian insufficiency and sensorineural hearing loss (two features of what is currently designated as Perrault syndrome) as well as chronic renal failure, asymptomatic myopathy, leukopenia, and a few others. In our opinion, this case is of great translational interest for at least three reasons. First, it hints towards the possibility of near-normal life expectancies in some if not many individuals with RMND1 insufficiency. Second, it underlines the wide clinical spectrum associated with this gene. Third, it brings us to question the use of eponyms and syndromic features to identify the true etiology of multisystemic phenotypes. KEY MESSAGES: RMND1-related conditions typically manifest at an early age with a progressive and lethal form of encephalomyopathy. More benign presentations have been described with some being categorized as Perrault syndrome but none have been diagnosed after the age of 45. The clinical spectrum and presenting age of RMND1-related mitochondriopathies are probably much more varied than implied in the current literature. The case reported in this manuscript illustrates the limitedness of phenotype-based classifications of genetic disorders to identify the defect at cause.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".