MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996606464 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.b.30418

p75<sup>NTR</sup> gene and suicide attempts in young adults with a history of childhood‐onset mood disorder

2007· article· en· W1996606464 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart McGregor, John S. Strauss, Natalie Bulgin, Vincenzo De Luca, Charles J. George, Mária Kovács, James L. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part B Neuropsychiatric Genetics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthMedical Center, University of PittsburghFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsMood disordersBiologyMissense mutationGeneticsMoodGeneMedicinePsychiatryPhenotypeAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, evidence has accumulated for the role of neurotrophic processes in mood disorders. Neurotrophins operate on receptors, one of which is the p75 neurotrophin receptor (p75(NTR)). We examined three p75(NTR) markers at the p75(NTR) gene, including a missense polymorphism that changes serine to leucine (S205L), for association with suicide attempt (SA) in 203 childhood-onset mood disorder (COMD) cases. There was no difference between COMD suicide attempters and COMD non-attempters with logistic regression models for any of the three markers. We also compared the three polymorphisms between 192 COMD cases and 192 matched healthy controls and found no significant differences between COMD and healthy controls. Our results do not support an association of the p75(NTR) S205L polymorphism with risk for COMD or SA in COMD.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part B Neuropsychiatric GeneticsSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207