MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1487528469 · doi:10.1002/ajhb.22491

Inbreeding is associated with lower 2D: 4D digit ratio

2013· article· en· W1487528469 on OpenAlexafffund
Barış Özener, Peter L. Hurd, İzzet Duyar

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Human Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDigit ratioInbreedingConsanguinityOffspringHumConsanguineous MarriageBiologyDemographySex ratioGeneticsLoss of heterozygosityMendelian inheritancePregnancyAllelePopulationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: While consanguineous marriage has been shown to result in a small increase in risk of recessive Mendelian disorders among offspring, far less research has been conducted on the effects of inbreeding on complex traits. These effects, thought to result from increased developmental instability due to loss of heterozygosity, are expected to be found more pervasively than rare recessive Mendelian traits and are expected to result in increased developmental noise. Here, we test for a direct effect of inbreeding on 2D : 4D, a putative indicator of prenatal hormonal environment. METHODS: We compared the 2D : 4D ratios of 122 male and 108 female consanguineous (children of first cousin marriages) high school and university students to those of 142 male and 122 females controls. RESULTS: Across hands and sex, consanguineous parentage was consistently associated with lower, more masculine-typical, digit ratios. Digit ratios were 1.3-1.9 times more variable among the consanguineous group than the control group. While socio-economic status cannot explain the effects seen in our data, we found that lower, more masculinized, digit ratios were associated with lower family income. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that consanguineous marriages are associated with a fetal environment that influences morphological development and may have associated behavioral sequelae.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Human BiologySame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207