Evidence for a genetic association between monoamine oxidase A and restless legs syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Impairment in the central dopaminergic system has been consistently suggested as an etiologic factor in restless legs syndrome (RLS). OBJECTIVE: To investigate a possible role for the MAOA and MAOB genes in RLS using a population-based association study. METHODS: In addition to a dinucleotide repeat located within the second intron of the MAOB gene, a functional variable number of tandem repeat (VNTR) polymorphism recently identified in the MAOA gene promoter region was examined, using 96 extensively characterized patients and 200 control subjects matched for ethnic background. The relationship between variation at these loci and several clinical features was also considered. RESULTS: Pertaining to the MAOA gene, females with the high activity allele had a greater risk (OR: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.06 to 3.77) of being affected with RLS than females carrying the low activity alleles. The authors did not observe this association among the male subjects (OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.31 to 3.14). Interestingly, females carrying the high transcription alleles showed a longer sleep onset latency (U = 163.5; p = 0.015) and exhibited a higher movement index during the Suggested Immobilization Test (Student's t-test = -2.02; p = 0.048). No differences were observed regarding the MAOB gene in our sample. CONCLUSIONS: The high activity allele of the MAOA gene may represent a modifying factor involved in the severity of RLS manifestations in females.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".