MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inhibitory neurophysiological deficit as a phenotype for genetic investigation of schizophrenia

2000· review· en· W2031994637 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Freedman, C.E. Adams, L. Adler, Paula C. Bickford, Judith Gault, Josette G. Harris, Herbert T. Nagamoto, Ann Olincy, Randal G. Ross, Karen E. Stevens, Merilyne C. Waldo, Sherry Leonard

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
Canadian institutionsSchizophrenia Society of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndophenotypeLocus (genetics)NeuroscienceSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychologyGeneticsGenetic linkageCandidate genePsychosisBipolar disorderBiologyGeneCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many investigators have proposed that biological endophenotypes might facilitate the genetic analysis of schizophrenia. A deficit in the inhibition of the P50 evoked response to repeated auditory stimuli has been characterized as a neurobiological deficit in schizophrenia. This deficit is linked to a candidate gene locus, the locus of the alpha7-nicotinic cholinergic receptor subunit gene on chromosome 15q14. Supportive evidence has been found by other investigators, including: 1) linkage of schizophrenia to the same locus; 2) linkage of bipolar disorder to the locus; and 3) replication of the existence of this neurobiological deficit and its relation to broader neuropsychological deficits in schizophrenia. It is certain that there are many genetic factors in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder; what is needed is a complete and precise description of the contribution of each individual factor to the pathophysiology of these illnesses.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations93
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical GeneticsSame topicNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudyFrench-language works237,207