ArticleClinical case reports2016
Functional characterization of a GFAP variant of uncertain significance in an Alexander disease case within the setting of an individualized medicine clinic.
Article in Clinical case reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aggregation-prone GFAP mutation in Alexander disease validated using a zebrafish model.BMC neurology · 2017Article
- Elucidation ofJCI insight · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A de novo GFAP variant, p.R376W, was identified in a child presenting with hypotonia, developmental delay, and abnormal brain MRI. Following the 2015 ACMG variant classification guidelines and the functional studies showing protein aggregate formation in vitro, p.R376W should be classified as a pathogenic variant, causative for Alexander disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.