Capturing the fragile X premutation phenotypes: A collaborative effort across multiple cohorts.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To capture the neuropsychological profile among male carriers of the FMR1 premutation allele (55-200 CGG repeats) who do not meet diagnostic criteria for the late-onset fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome, FXTAS. METHOD: We have initiated a multicenter collaboration that includes 3 independent cohorts, totaling 100 carriers of the premutation and 216 noncarriers. The initial focus of this collaboration has been on executive function. Four executive function scores are shared among the 3 cohorts (Controlled Oral Word Association Test, Stroop Color-Word Test, and Wechsler backward digit span and letter-number sequencing) whereas additional executive function scores are available for specific cohorts (Behavior Dyscontrol Scale, Hayling Sentence Completion Test Part B, and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test). Raw scores were analyzed by using statistical models that adjust for cohort-specific effects as well as age and education. RESULTS: Carriers scored significantly lower compared to noncarriers on the Stroop Color-Word Test (p = .01), Hayling Sentence Completion Test Part B (p < .01), and Behavioral Dyscontrol Scale (p = .03), with the Hayling displaying a significant age-related decline (p = .01), as assessed by an age and repeat length-group interaction. Follow-up analysis of the collective data did not identify any specific age groups or repeat length ranges (i.e., low premutation = 55-70 repeats, midpremutation = 71-100 repeats, high premutation = 101-199 repeats) that were associated with an increased risk of executive function deficits. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary analyses do not indicate global executive function impairment among male carriers without FXTAS compared to noncarriers. However, impairment in inhibitory capacity may be present among a subset of carriers, though the risk factors for this group do not appear to be related to age or repeat length.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".