MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392287090 · doi:10.1080/13816810.2024.2321883

Novel heterozygous <i>PRPH2</i> variant identified in a patient with spinocerebellar ataxia type 14 and macular dystrophy

2024· article· en· W4392287090 on OpenAlexaff
Tugche S. Chen, Narin Sheri, David Ehmann, Matthew D. Benson

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic Genetics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpinocerebellar ataxiaMacular dystrophyDystrophyAtaxiaMedicineGeneticsMacular degenerationTrinucleotide repeat expansionBiologyPathologyOphthalmologyNeuroscienceGeneAllele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To report on a patient with spinocerebellar ataxia type 14 (SCA14) and macular dystrophy with identification of a novel PRPH2 variant.Methods Case report.Results A 63-year-old female with molecularly confirmed SCA14 presented with symmetric pigmentary disturbances in a perifoveal distribution resembling a pattern macular dystrophy. She had no history of using medications with recognized toxic macular effects. Subsequent genetic testing confirmed a novel heterozygous missense variant of unknown significance in PRPH2 (PRPH2: c.694 G>A, p.(Ala232Thr)).Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first case of macular dystrophy identified in a patient with SCA14. While it is possible that the macular dystrophy observed in this patient might be an under-reported phenotype associated with SCA14, the pattern of macular changes is consistent with PRPH2-related disorders. The identified missense variant is predicted to be damaging by most in silico models, and the residue is highly conserved, adding support to a dual genetic diagnosis in this case.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmic GeneticsSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207