Genome scan for loci involved in nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate in families from West Bengal, India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to identify genes or regions involved in nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL/P) in families from India, we analyzed 38 multiplex families (DNA from 272 individuals, 82 affected with CL/P, 190 unaffected) for 285 genome-wide markers (average spacing 12.6 cM), including markers in six candidate loci or regions on chromosomes 2, 4, 6, 14, 17, and 19 that have been implicated in other studies of CL/P. LOD scores (two-point and multipoint), and model-free association (TDT) and linkage (NPL) statistics, were calculated between each of the markers and a hypothetical CL/P susceptibility locus. The most statistically significant two-point linkage results were with markers on chromosome 7 (LOD = 1.89 with D7S435, 7p15, 47 cM), chromosome 5 (LOD = 1.76 with D5S407, 5q11, 65 cM), chromosome 15 (LOD = 1.55 with D15S652, 15q26, 90 cM), and chromosome 20 (LOD = 1.46 with STS155130, 20q13, 54 cM). The most significant multipoint linkage result was on chromosome 5q, again near D5S407 (HLOD = 1.40). Regions on chromosomes 1p, 1q, 7q, 12q, 16q, 18q, and Xp also had a LOD or HLOD > or = 1.0. Of seven candidate markers and regions with previous positive reports in the literature (TGFA, MSX1, D4S175, F13A1, TGFB3, D17S250, and APOC2), none had a significant linkage result, but one (the APOC2 region) had a significant association result and three others (TGFA, MSX1, F13A1) had suggestive results. The results are consistent with the involvement of multiple loci in CL/P expression in this West Bengal population, which concurs with results found in other CL/P study populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".