Expanded RED products and loci containing CAG/CTG repeats on chromosome 17 (ERDA1) and chromosome 18 (CTG18.1) in trans‐generational pairs with bipolar affective disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to further test if expanded CAG repeats detected by the repeat expansion detection (RED) method in bipolar affective disorder (BPAD) are correlated with ERDA1 (17q21.3) and/or CTG18.1 (18q21.1) loci expansions, and changes of phenotype severity in successive generations (anticipation). The sample was designed to analyze ERDA1 and CTG18.1 expansions in trans-generational pairs of affected individuals (parent-offspring pairs: G1 and G2). Clinical and genetic information was available on 95 two-generations pairs. We found in our sample no one patient carrying an expanded allele at the CTG18.1 locus. This observation is true for all individuals in G1 and G2. Using the conditional logistic regression, no statistical difference was observed between the two generations for ERDA1 alleles (chi(2) = 0.2, P = 0.65). These data do not support the correlation between expanded RED products (RED fragments >120) and expanded alleles at ERDA1 in trans-generational pairs with BPAD. We were not able to detect any correlation for CTG18.1. Earlier age at onset in offspring generation was also not associated with expanded RED products explained by expanded ERDA1 alleles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".