MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Identification of Novel Genes Involved in Migraine

2012· article· en· W1583710296 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald G. Lafrenière, Guy A. Rouleau

Bibliographic record

VenueHeadache The Journal of Head and Face Pain · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamilial hemiplegic migraineMigraineGeneGeneticsBiologyIn silicoPopulationProbandMigraine with auraBioinformaticsMedicineMutationInternal medicineAura

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common form of headache affecting about 12% of the population. Genetic studies in the rare form of familial hemiplegic migraine have identified mutations in 3 genes (CACNA1A, ATP1A2, and SCN1A) encoding proteins involved in ion homeostasis and suggesting that other such genes may be involved in the more common forms of migraine. OBJECTIVES: To test this proposition, the coding regions of 150 brain-expressed genes involved in ion homeostasis (ion channels, transporters, exchangers, and accessory subunits) were systematically screened to identify DNA variants in a group of 110 migraine probands and 250 control samples. METHODS: DNA variants were analyzed using a number of complementary in silico approaches. RESULTS: Several genes encoding potassium channels, including KCNK18, KCNG4, and KCNAB3, were identified as potentially linked to migraine. In situ hybridization studies of the mouse Kcnk18 ortholog show that it is developmentally expressed in the trigeminal and dorsal root ganglia, further supporting the involvement of this gene in migraine pathogenesis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to link variations in these K(+) channel genes to migraine, thus expanding on the view of migraine as a channelopathy and providing potential molecular targets for further study and therapeutic applications.

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)0.005
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 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

Citations43
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeadache The Journal of Head and Face PainSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207