Epigenetic contributors to the discordance of monozygotic twins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human monozygotic (MZ) twins estimated to occur once in 250 live births, result from an errant decision by embryonic cell(s) to develop as separate embryos. They are considered genetically identical and any phenotypic discordance between them has been used to implicate the role of environment. More recent literature, however, has questioned these assumptions but the frequency and the nature of any genetic discordance between MZ twins remains poorly understood. We will review published cases of phenotypic and genetic discordance between monozygotic twins to argue that not all discordance between such twins is due to differences in environment. The causes of reduced concordance between MZ twins remains poorly understood. They represent among the challenging aspects of the genetics of complex multi-factorial traits and diseases. A number of questions regarding the published results on MZ twins merit a re-assessment in the light of modern molecular insight of the human genome. Such an assessment is needed in directing future studies on MZ twins. In particular, we will deal with the origin, development, genetic and epigenetic factors that may have implications in discordance of the MZ twin pairs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".