MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Further evidence from haplotype analysis for linkage of the dopamine D4 receptor gene and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

2000· article· en· W2056636225 on OpenAlexafffund
Cathy L. Barr, Karen Wigg, Stacey Bloom, Russell Schachar, Rosemary Tannock, Wendy Roberts, Molly Malone, James L. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthSickKids FoundationToronto Western HospitalHospital for Sick Children
FundersMedical Research CouncilHealth CanadaHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsHaplotypeGeneticsAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderExonAlleleBiologyDopamineGenetic linkageDopamine receptorDopamine receptor D2Dopamine receptor D3GenePsychologyReceptorEndocrinologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several studies have suggested a possible association of a polymorphism at the dopamine D4 receptor gene and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder [LaHoste et al., 1996; Rowe et al., 1998; Smalley et al., 1998; Sunohara et al., submitted; Swanson et al., 1998]. The allele reported to be associated with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the allele with seven copies of the 48 bp repeat in the third exon. We extend our study of the dopamine D4 gene and ADHD by testing for linkage using two additional polymorphisms in the dopamine D4 receptor gene and a polymorphism in the closely linked gene, tyrosine hydroxylase. We also searched for two previously reported deletions, a 13 bp and a 21 bp deletion in the first exon. We examined the haplotypes of three polymorphisms of the D4 receptor gene and observed biased transmission of two of these haplotypes. Our findings further support the role of the dopamine D4 gene in ADHD.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.290 · 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.

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

Citations103
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical GeneticsSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207