Further evidence for linkage of bipolar disorder to chromosomes 6 and 17 in a new independent pedigree series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greenwood TA, Nievergelt CM, Sadovnick AD, Remick RA, Keck PE Jr, McElroy SL, Shekhtman T, McKinney R, Kelsoe JR. Further evidence for linkage of bipolar disorder to chromosomes 6 and 17 in a new independent pedigree series. Bipolar Disord 2012: 14: 71–79. © 2012 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Objectives: We have previously reported the results of a linkage analysis of bipolar disorder in an initial set of 20 pedigrees ascertained through collaboration among three sites. We now report the results of our genome‐wide linkage analysis in an independent sample of 34 pedigrees segregating bipolar disorder. Methods: Families were ascertained through a bipolar I or II disorder proband for the presence of bipolar I disorder, bipolar II disorder, or recurrent major depression in at least two other family members. A total of 440 markers at an average spacing of 8 cM were genotyped in 229 family members using fluorescent methods. Results: Initial nonparametric analyses of chromosomes 6 and 17 provided evidence for a modest replication of linkage to these chromosomes previously reported in other studies. Additional analyses using multipoint parametric methods provided further evidence to support the 6q25 region with a heterogeneity logarithm of odds score of 3.28. Evidence from two‐point parametric analyses also provides a modest replication of our previous findings of linkage to the 23 cM region of chromosome 22q13 in our original University of California, San Diego sample of 20 families and 57 families from the National Institute of Mental Health bipolar disorder sample. Conclusions: Our results suggest replication of some reported linkage peaks, such as 6q25 and 17p12; however, other peaks from our own previous study, such as 5p15, 13q32, and 22q13, were either not replicated or were only modestly replicated in these analyses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".