MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

LACK OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN <i>SLITRK1</i> var321 AND TOURETTE SYNDROME IN A LARGE FAMILY-BASED SAMPLE

2008· article· en· W2102710248 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeremiah M. Scharf, P. Moorjani, Jes Fagerness, Jill Platko, Cornelia Illmann, Brian Galloway, Eric Jenike, S. Evelyn Stewart, David L. Pauls

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeTourette Association of America
KeywordsTourette syndromeTicsPopulationPsychiatryMedicineMendelian inheritanceGeneticsPsychologyBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tourette syndrome (TS) has a significant genetic component, yet no TS susceptibility genes have been identified definitively. Several studies have determined that first-degree relatives of patients with TS have at least a 5- to 15-fold increased risk of developing the disorder compared with the general population, an increase that represents one of the highest familial recurrence risks among neuropsychiatric diseases that are inherited in a non-Mendelian fashion.1 Recently, Slit- and Trk-like 1 (SLITRK1) was proposed as a candidate TS susceptibility gene, and a noncoding polymorphism in the 3′ untranslated region of this gene (var321) was reported to be associated with TS in a case–control sample.2 Additional studies in small samples or population isolates have failed to replicate this association.3,4 As part of a 20-year collaborative effort, the Tourette Syndrome Association International Consortium for Genetics (TSAICG) has systematically collected a clinical sample of over 1,000 patients with TS and their family members.5 We chose to screen these individuals for SLITRK1 var321 to determine a more accurate estimate of the prevalence of this variant in the white TS clinic population and to test for any association between var321 and TS. ### Methods. A total of 2,300 individuals from 646 independently ascertained nuclear families were recruited from tic disorder specialty clinics from the United States, Canada, Great Britain, and The Netherlands. A total of 1,048 individuals (172 parents and 876 offspring) were diagnosed with either TS (989 subjects) or chronic tics (CT) (59 subjects) (e-Methods on the Neurology ® Web site at www.neurology.org). A total of 440 …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations91
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207