MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7112205255

GAA-FGF14 Expansions and CACNA1A Variants: Phenotypic Overlap and Diagnostic Implications.

2025· article· en· W7112205255 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDZNE Pub · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchElse Kröner-Fresenius-StiftungDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftMcGill University
KeywordsSpinocerebellar ataxiaAtaxiaTrinucleotide repeat expansionEssential tremorPhenotypeMovement disordersDiseaseGenetic testing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An intronic (GAA)•(TTC) repeat expansion in FGF14 was recently identified as the cause of spinocerebellar ataxia 27B (SCA27B), a disorder presenting with both chronic cerebellar ataxia and episodic symptoms. The phenotype of SCA27B overlaps with that of CACNA1A spectrum disorders.The objective of this work was to investigate the prevalence of GAA-FGF14 repeat expansions in patients with ataxia so far considered to be related to underlying CACNA1A variants.This is a cross-sectional multicenter study.GAA-FGF14 testing showed pathogenic expansions (≥250 repeats) in 6/67 (9%) patients carrying CACNA1A variants. All patients with a pathogenic GAA-FGF14 expansion had a disease onset >40 years and carried variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) in CACNA1A. Genetic reevaluation led to the reclassification of CACNA1A VUSs as likely benign in four of six patients, who were ultimately diagnosed with SCA27B.Late-onset ataxia cases previously considered as CACNA1A-related disorder should be reevaluated and tested for SCA27B, particularly if related to a VUS in CACNA1A. © 2025 The Author(s). Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDZNE PubSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207