MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1815409777 · doi:10.1002/aur.1469

Neuroanatomical Phenotypes Are Consistent With Autism‐Like Behavioral Phenotypes in the 15q11‐13 Duplication Mouse Model

2015· article· en· W1815409777 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacob Ellegood, Nobuhiro Nakai, Jin Nakatani, Mark Henkelman, Toru Takumi, Jason P. Lerch

Bibliographic record

VenueAutism Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCenters for Disease Control and PreventionMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyOntario Brain Institute
KeywordsAutismGene duplicationNeurosciencePhenotypePsychologyPopulationBiologyDentate gyrusGeneticsDevelopmental psychologyMedicineGeneCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paternally and maternally inherited deletions and duplications of human chromosome 15q11-13 are relatively common in the human population. Furthermore, duplications in the 15q region are often associated with autism. Both maternal and paternal interstitial 15q11-13 duplication mouse models have been previously created, where several behavioral differences were found in the paternal duplication (patDp/+) mouse but not in the maternal duplication (matDp/+). These included decreased sociability, behavioral inflexibility, abnormal ultrasonic vocalizations, decreased spontaneous activity, and increased anxiety. Similarly, in the current study, we found several anatomical differences in the patDp/+ mice that were not seen in the matDp/+ mice. Regional differences that are evident only in the paternal duplication are a smaller dentate gyrus and smaller medial striatum. These differences may be responsible for the behavioral inflexibility. Furthermore, a smaller dorsal raphe nucleus could be responsible for the reported serotonin defects. This study highlights consistency that can be found between behavioral and anatomical phenotyping.

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)0.001
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 score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAutism ResearchSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207