MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1893379983 · doi:10.1159/000221166

Approaches to Evaluate Gene-Environment Interactions Underlying the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease

2009· book-chapter· en· W1893379983 on OpenAlexaff
Craig E. Pennell, Lyle J. Palmer, Brian S. Knight, Caroline L. Relton, Stephen J. Lye

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseaseBiologyEvolutionary biologyPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyGeneticsMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research studies have established a clear relationship between antenatal and postnatal environments and the development of adult diseases including the metabolic syndrome (coronary heart disease, stroke, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia), obesity, neurologic disorders and mental illness [1]. These observations have been confirmed in multiple human populations and in numerous animal studies in multiple species. It is clear that the environment of mother, baby and child is a key contributor to diseases and conditions that account for approximately one third of the global burden of disease in both developed and developing countries. Although adverse antenatal and postnatal environments increase the risk of particular adult diseases, not all individuals exposed to these environments develop these conditions, suggesting that an individual’s genotype may contribute to the eventual outcome. Therefore, it has been suggested that gene-environment interactions underlie the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.262
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.083 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207