Familial influence on age of onset among siblings with Huntington disease*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to provide data relevant to a search for modifying genes for age of onset in Huntington disease, we examined the relationship between CAG number and age of onset in a total of 370 individuals from 165 siblingships, in two cohorts of siblings with Huntington disease: an American group of 144 individuals from 64 siblingships, and a Canadian population of 255 individuals from 113 siblingships. Using a logarithmic model to regress the age of onset on the number of CAG triplets, we found that CAG number alone accounted for 65%-71% of the variance in age of onset. The siblingship an individual belonged to accounted for 11%-19% of additional variance. This adds to the previous evidence that there are familial modifiers of the age of onset, independent of the CAG number. Such modifiers may consist of additional genes, which could be the target of a linkage study. A linkage study is feasible with the cooperation of a number of major centers and may be made more efficient by concentrating on sibling pairs that are highly discordant for age of onset.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".