MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Localization of two new X‐linked quantitative trait loci controlling corpus callosum size in the mouse

2006· article· en· W2061505810 on OpenAlexafffund
G. K. Kusek, Douglas Wahłsten, Bruce J. Herron, Valerie J. Bolivar, L Flaherty

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes Brain & Behavior · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCorpus callosumQuantitative trait locusBiologyBackcrossingGeneticsAllelePhenotypeInbred strainGenetic linkageChromosomeGeneAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corpus callosum (CC) size is a complex trait, characterized by a gradation of values within a normal range, as well as abnormalities that include a small or totally absent CC. Among inbred mouse strains with defects of the CC, BTBR T(+)tf/J (BTBR) mice have the most extreme phenotype; all animals show total absence of the CC and severe reduction of the hippocampal commissure (HC). In contrast, the BALB/cByJ (BALB) strain has a low frequency of small CC and consistently normal HC. Reciprocal F(1) crosses between BTBR and BALB suggest the presence of X-linked quantitative trait loci (QTLs) affecting CC size. Through linkage analysis of backcross male progeny, we have localized two regions on the X chromosome, having peaks at 68.5 Mb (approximately 29.5 cM) and at 134.5 Mb (approximately 60.5 cM) that are largely responsible for the reciprocal differences, with the BTBR allele showing X-linked dominant inheritance associated with CC defects.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations39
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes Brain & BehaviorSame topicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsFrench-language works237,207