MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Alterations of visual and auditory evoked potentials in fragile X syndrome

2014· article· en· W2033509631 on OpenAlexafffund
Inga Sophia Knoth, Phetsamone Vannasing, Philippe Major, Jacques L. Michaud, Sarah Lippé

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Developmental Neuroscience · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersScottish Rite Charitable Foundation of Canada
KeywordsFragile X syndromeSynaptic pruningNeuroscienceAutismPsychologyFMR1AudiologySensory processingCognitionSynapseIntellectual disabilitySensory systemDevelopmental psychologyBiologyMedicineFragile xPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) is the most common monogenic form of intellectual disability and one of the few known monogenic causes of autism. It is caused by a trinucleotide repeat expansion in the FMR1 ('Fragile X Mental Retardation 1') gene, which prevents expression of the 'Fragile X Mental Retardation Protein' (FMRP). In FXS, the absence of FMRP leads to altered structural and functional development of the synapse, while preventing activity-based synapse maturation and synaptic pruning, which are essential for normal brain development and cognitive development. Possible impairments in information processing can be non-invasively investigated using electrophysiology. METHODS: We compared auditory (AEP) and visual (VEP) evoked potentials in twelve adolescents and young adults (10-22 years) affected by FXS to healthy controls matched by chronological age (N=12) and developmental age of cognitive functioning (N=9; 5-7 years), using analysis of variance. RESULTS: In the visual modality, the N70 and N2 amplitude have been found increased in FXS in comparison to the chronological, but not the developmental control group at occipital sites, whereas in the auditory modality N1, P2 and N2 amplitude as well as N2 latency have been found increased in FXS, relative to both chronological and developmental control groups at mid-central sites. CONCLUSIONS: The AEP/VEP profile suggests disruptions in sensory processing specific to FXS that exceed immaturity of physiological activity. In addition, the auditory modality seems to be more affected than the visual modality. Results are discussed in light of possible underlying neuronal mechanisms, including deficits in synaptic pruning and neuronal inhibition that might account for a hyperreactive nervous system in FXS.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.246 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations66
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Developmental NeuroscienceSame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207