MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054046372 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.20190

Interaction of normal and expanded CAG repeat sizes influences age at onset of Huntington disease

2003· article· en· W2054046372 on OpenAlexaff
Luc Djoussé, Beth A. Knowlton, Michael R. Hayden, E. Almqvist, Ryan R. Brinkman, Christopher A. Ross, Russel L. Margolis, Adam Rosenblatt, Alexandra Dürr, Catherine Dodé, Patrick J. Morrison, Andrea Novelletto, Marina Frontali, R J Trent, Elizabeth McCusker, E. Gómez‐Tortosa, David J. Mayo, Randi Jones, Andrea Zanko, Martha Nance, R. Abramson, Oksana Suchowersky, Jane S. Paulsen, Madeline Harrison, Qiong Yang, L. Adrienne Cupples, James F. Gusella, Marcy E. MacDonald, Richard H. Myers

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsTrinucleotide repeat expansionHuntington's diseaseAlleleCohortAge of onsetDiseaseInternal medicineBiologyGeneticsMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Huntington disease (HD) is a neurodegenerative disorder caused by the abnormal expansion of CAG repeats in the HD gene on chromosome 4p16.3. Past studies have shown that the size of expanded CAG repeat is inversely associated with age at onset (AO) of HD. It is not known whether the normal Huntington allele size influences the relation between the expanded repeat and AO of HD. Data collected from two independent cohorts were used to test the hypothesis that the unexpanded CAG repeat interacts with the expanded CAG repeat to influence AO of HD. In the New England Huntington Disease Center Without Walls (NEHD) cohort of 221 HD affected persons and in the HD-MAPS cohort of 533 HD affected persons, we found evidence supporting an interaction between the expanded and unexpanded CAG repeat sizes which influences AO of HD (P = 0.08 and 0.07, respectively). The association was statistically significant when both cohorts were combined (P = 0.012). The estimated heritability of the AO residual was 0.56 after adjustment for normal and expanded repeats and their interaction. An analysis of tertiles of repeats sizes revealed that the effect of the normal allele is seen among persons with large HD repeat sizes (47-83). These findings suggest that an increase in the size of the normal repeat may mitigate the expression of the disease among HD affected persons with large expanded CAG repeats.

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)0.004
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations162
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207