Detection of expansion regions in Portuguese bipolar families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have studied 24 families with multiple affected members with bipolar disorder to test the hypothesis that in those families clinically showing genetic anticipation [Macedo et al., 1999] we would find large repeat expansions. The families meeting inclusion criteria had a minimum of two affected members over two generations and showed marked anticipation both in terms of age of onset and disease severity. We used the repeat expansion detection (RED) method to test patients (n = 24) and controls from these families and unrelated controls (n = 53). We also genotyped patients and family members from two families with large expansions at the known expansion loci on chromosomes 13, 17, and 18. The RED method revealed a higher number of large expansions in patients compared with controls (t-test; P < 0.0055: Mann-Whitney U; P = 0.02). The patients with the largest expansions were typed at the specific loci on chromosomes 13, 17, and 18 and the chromosome 18 expansion locus segregated with disease in one family, and a second family showed segregation with the expansion located at the SCA8 locus on chromosome 13. Genetic anticipation had been analyzed in this cohort of families, with correction for potential ascertainment bias, possible proband effects, cohort effects, regression to the mean, gender effects, and maternal vs. paternal transmission. None of these potential confounds appeared to account for the observed anticipation. We also identified that the presence of large expansions in affected family members derives primarily from two families from the genetically isolated Azores population. One family shows segregation with the chromosome 18 locus, whereas the other family segregates with expansions at the SCA8 locus. Am. J. Med. Genet. (Neuropsychiatr. Genet.) 96:854-857, 2000.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".