MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087512975 · doi:10.1186/1471-2164-14-499

Identification of candidate intergenic risk loci in autism spectrum disorder

2013· article· en· W2087512975 on OpenAlexafffund
Susan Walker, Stephen W. Scherer

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Genomics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationHospital for Sick ChildrenGovernment of OntarioCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario GenomicsGenome CanadaOntario Genomics InstituteCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of TorontoGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsIntergenic regionBiologyGeneticsCopy-number variationGeneWhole genome sequencingGenomeHuman geneticsDNA sequencingAutism spectrum disorderAutismComputational biologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Copy number variations (CNVs) and DNA sequence alterations affecting specific neuronal genes are established risk factors for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). In what is largely considered a genetic condition, so far, these mutations account for ~20% of individuals having an ASD diagnosis. However, non-coding genomic sequence also contains functional elements introducing additional disease risk loci for investigation. RESULTS: We have performed genome-wide analyses and identified rare inherited CNVs affecting non-genic intervals in 41 of 1491 (3%) of ASD cases examined. Examples of such intergenic CNV regions include 16q21 and 2p16.3 near known ASD risk genes CDH8 and NRXN1 respectively, as well as novel loci contiguous with ZHX2, MOCS1, LRRC4C, SEMA3C, and other genes. CONCLUSIONS: Rare variants in intergenic regions may implicate new risk loci and genes in ASD and also present useful data for comparison with coming whole genome sequence datasets.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GenomicsSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207