MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036775365 · doi:10.1159/000268822

No Effect of Parental Age on Risk of Multiple Sclerosis: A Population-Based Study

2009· article· en· W2036775365 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sreeram V. Ramagopalan, David A. Dyment, Colleen Guimond, Irene M. Yee, George C. Ebers, A. Dessa Sadovnick

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroepidemiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultiple sclerosisPopulationPediatricsDemographyEnvironmental healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Genetic and environmental factors have important roles in multiple sclerosis (MS) susceptibility. A clear parent-of-origin effect has been shown in several populations. Advanced maternal age has been shown to be associated with adverse outcomes in offspring including chromosomal abnormalities. Advanced paternal age is associated with a number of adult onset disorders including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. In a population-based Canadian cohort, we investigated whether there is any difference in parental age at birth for MS index cases compared to spouse controls. METHODS: Using the longitudinal Canadian database, we identified 5,681 MS index cases and 1,249 spouse controls with complete information on parental dates of birth, thereby allowing a calculation of the maternal and paternal ages at the birth of their children (MS index cases and spouse controls). RESULTS: No significant difference in maternal or paternal age at birth was found (average MS index case maternal age at birth = 27.3 years, average spouse control maternal age at birth = 27.0 years, p = 0.13; average MS index case paternal age at birth = 30.7 years, average spouse control paternal age at birth = 30.2 years, p = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Parental age at birth is not associated with susceptibility to MS.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroepidemiologySame topicGenetic Syndromes and ImprintingFrench-language works237,207