MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981026546 · doi:10.1002/eat.20986

Possible association of the <i>DRD4</i> gene with a history of attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder in women with bulimia nervosa

2012· article· en· W1981026546 on OpenAlexafffund
Zeynep Yılmaz, Allan S. Kaplan, Robert D. Levitan, Clement C. Zai, James L. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Eating Disorders · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProbandBulimia nervosaAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderFamily historyPsychologyContext (archaeology)AllelePsychiatryOdds ratioOffspringMedicineEating disordersGeneticsInternal medicineGeneBiologyMutationPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Up to one-third of patients with bulimia nervosa (BN) report a history of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms, and the dopaminergic genes, especially the dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4), have been associated independently with both binge eating and ADHD. METHOD: The purpose of this study was to (1) compare the frequency of DRD4 exon III VNTR variants in 157 BN probands and equal number of healthy controls; (2) assess transmission of DRD4 alleles in 68 families of patients with BN; and (3) explore the possible role of DRD4 gene in childhood ADHD history in a subgroup of 81 women with BN. RESULTS: Our results showed that the BN probands and controls did not differ in DRD4 allele frequency. We also did not find evidence for preferential transmission of any DRD4 variant to the affected offspring with BN. However, the presence of either the 2-repeat or 7-repeat allele was associated with a history of childhood ADHD in BN (p = .038, odds ratio = 3.2). DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that although DRD4 may not be associated with the diagnosis of BN, its variants are associated with a history of childhood ADHD in BN probands. This may have relevance for the understanding, prevention, and treatment of BN that evolves in the context of childhood ADHD.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Eating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207