MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394618940 · doi:10.1080/13816810.2024.2337879

Broadening the ocular phenotypic spectrum of ultra-rare <i>BRPF1</i> variants: report of two cases

2024· article· en· W4394618940 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Elisa Marziali, Samuela Landini, Erika Fiorentini, Camilla Rocca, Lucia Tiberi, Rosangela Artuso, Laila Zaroili, Elia Dirupo, Pina Fortunato, Sara Bargiacchi, Roberto Caputo, Giacomo Maria Bacci

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic Genetics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Health, British Columbia
KeywordsStrabismusGeneticsPhenotypeAniridiaEpigeneticsGenePtosisBiologyMedicineOphthalmologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction BRPF1 gene on 3p26-p25 encodes a protein involved in epigenetic regulation, through interaction with histone H3 lysine acetyltransferases KAT6A and KAT6B of the MYST family. Heterozygous pathogenic variants in BRPF1 gene are associated with Intellectual Developmental Disorder with Dysmorphic Facies and Ptosis (IDDDFP), characterized by global developmental delay, intellectual disability, language delay, and dysmorphic facial features. The reported ocular involvement includes strabismus, amblyopia, and refraction errors. This report describes a novel ocular finding in patients affected by variants in the BRPF1 gene.Methods We performed exome sequencing and deep ocular phenotyping in two unrelated patients (P1, P2) with mild intellectual disability, ptosis, and typical facies.Results Interestingly, P1 had a Chiari Malformation type I and a subclinical optic neuropathy, which could not be explained by variations in other genes. Having detected a peculiar ocular phenotype in P1, we suggested optical coherence tomography (OCT) for P2; such an exam also detected bilateral subclinical optic neuropathy in this case.Discussion To date, only a few patients with BRPF1 variants have been described, and none were reported to have optic neuropathy. Since subclinical optic nerve alterations can go easily undetected, our experience highlights the importance of a more detailed ophthalmologic evaluation in patients with BRPF1 variant.

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)0.002
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
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmic GeneticsSame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207