MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065578974 · doi:10.1002/mds.22263

Autosomal‐dominant locus for restless legs syndrome in French‐Canadians on chromosome 16p12.1

2008· article· en· W2065578974 on OpenAlexaffabout
Аnastasia Levchenko, Jacques‐Yves Montplaisir, Géraldine Asselin, Sylvie Provost, Simon Girard, Lan Xiong, Emmanuelle Lemyre, Judith St‐Onge, Pascale Thibodeau, Alex Désautels, Gustavo Turecki, Cláudia Gaspar, Marie‐Pierre Dubé, Guy A. Rouleau

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRestless Legs Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University InstituteDouglas CollegeHôpital Notre-DameCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineMontreal Heart InstituteUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocus (genetics)GeneticsBiologyMicrosatelliteKaryotypeMega-Genetic linkageRestless legs syndromeGeneCopy-number variationChromosomeGenomeEvolutionary biologyAlleleNeuroscienceNeurology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe an autosomal-dominant locus for Restless Legs Syndrome (RLS) in a French-Canadian (FC) pedigree. Genome-wide microsatellite scan and linkage analysis were used in this study. The locus maps to chromosome 16p12.1 and spans 1.18 Mega bases. The maximum multipoint LOD scores are of 3.5 over the total of 10 markers. Evidence for the same locus was also found in a smaller FC pedigree sime095. The analysis of the sequence of 8 annotated genes within the region did not reveal any pathogenic mutations. Copy number variation and karyotype analyses did not reveal any chromosomal abnormality in the region. Further analyses of the region are necessary to find the genetic cause of RLS in this family.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations55
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicRestless Legs Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207