MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062966168 · doi:10.1093/brain/awf158

A multigenerational family with multiple sclerosis

2002· article· en· W2062966168 on OpenAlexfundno aff
David A. Dyment

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMultiple Sclerosis Society of Canada
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisPenetranceAlleleGeneticsLocus (genetics)Genetic linkageFamily historyLinkage disequilibriumAge of onsetTransmission disequilibrium testHaplotypeBiologyMedicineGeneDiseaseImmunologyPhenotypeInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report a family with 15 individuals affected with multiple sclerosis present in three and possibly four generations. The segregation of multiple sclerosis within this pedigree is consistent with an autosomal dominant mode of inheritance with reduced penetrance. The clinical characteristics of the affected individuals are indistinguishable from those seen in sporadic multiple sclerosis with respect to sex ratio, age at onset, onset symptom, MRI and clinical course. Eleven of 14 cases (78.6%) were positive for the known multiple sclerosis-associated major histocompatibility complex (MHC) Class II HLA DRB1*15 allele. Parametric linkage analysis gave a non-significant LOD score of 0.31 (theta; = 0.33) for the DRB1 gene. However, among 11 affected children with at least one DRB1*15 bearing parent, all 11 out of 11 received at least one copy of this known susceptibility allele. A transmission disequilibrium test analysis was significant for the DRB1*15 allele within this single family; P = 0.0054. The inheritance pattern in this family suggests the presence of a single major locus responsible for multiple sclerosis susceptibility, with DRB1 acting as an important modifier. This family could be an important resource for the identification of a multiple sclerosis susceptibility gene.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations34
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207