MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016157295 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.c.30046

Molecular characterization of suicide by microarray analysis

2005· review· en· W2016157295 on OpenAlexaff
Fuad G. Gwadry, Adolfo Sequeira, Glenn D. Hoke, Jarlath M.H. ffrench‐Mullen, Gustavo Turecki

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part C Seminars in Medical Genetics · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill UniversityBioinformatics Solutions (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommitMicroarrayMicroarray analysis techniquesGenetic predispositionSuicide attemptGene chip analysisBiologyComputational biologyGenePsychologyBioinformaticsGeneticsPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsComputer scienceMedicineGene expressionMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several lines of evidence support the idea that individuals who commit suicide have a certain biological predisposition, part of which is given by genes. Studies investigating genetic factors increasing suicide predisposition have been limited by current knowledge of the suicide neurobiology and have typically investigated one or a few genes at a time, whereas it is anticipated that several genes account for the total genetic variance mediating suicide. This review focuses on the advantages and the interest of using the microarray technology to investigate the neurobiology of suicide and discusses, by means of a data analysis example, the possible methodological problems and bioinformatic strategies that should be employed in order to separate the signal from the large amount of background noise, which is usually generated in such studies. Microarray expression studies and related platforms are promising tools to gain better insight into the neurobiology of suicide.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.330 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part C Seminars in Medical GeneticsSame topicNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudyFrench-language works237,207