MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distribution of <i>FMR1</i> and <i>FMR2</i> alleles in Javanese individuals with developmental disability and confirmation of a specific AGG‐interruption pattern in Asian populations

2001· article· en· W2080815950 on OpenAlexaff
Sultana MH Faradz, Jayne Leggo, Anna Murray, P.R.L.C. Lam-Po-Tang, Michael F. Buckley, Jeanette J. A. Holden

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Human Genetics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFMR1GeneticsTrinucleotide repeat expansionBiologyAlleleFragile X syndromePopulationGeneDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of trinucleotide repeats in the 5' untranslated regions of the FMR1 and FMR2 genes was determined by PCR in 254 Fragile XA-negative Javanese male children with developmental disabilities. The distribution of FMR1 and FMR2 trinucleotide repeat alleles was found to be significantly different in the Indonesian population with developmental disability compared to that in developmentally disabled populations in North America and Europe (p & 0.021). Sequence analysis was performed on the trinucleotide repeat arrays of the 27 individuals with FMR1 alleles in the 'grey zone' (35-54 repeats). A repeat array structure of 9A9A6A9 was found in 16 unrelated individuals with 36 repeats, confirming earlier observations in intellectually normal Japanese. We propose that this FMR1 array pattern is specific for Asian populations and that Javanese and Japanese populations arose from a single progenitor population.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations7
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Human GeneticsSame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207