MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109497346 · doi:10.1111/gbb.12223

A genome‐wide sib‐pair scan for quantitative language traits reveals linkage to chromosomes 10 and 13

2015· article· en· W2109497346 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Patrick Evans, Kathyrn L. Mueller, Eric R. Gamazon, Nancy J. Cox, J. Bruce Tomblin

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes Brain & Behavior · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersDNA Genotek
KeywordsLinkage (software)Genome ScanGenetic linkageGenomeGeneticsBiologyTraitQuantitative trait locusPopulationPhenotypeGeneEvolutionary biologyComputational biologyMicrosatelliteComputer scienceMedicineAllele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there is considerable evidence that individual differences in language development are highly heritable, there have been few genome-wide scans to locate genes associated with the trait. Previous analyses of language impairment have yielded replicable evidence for linkage to regions on chromosomes 16q, 19q, 13q (within lab) and at 13q (between labs). Here we report the first linkage study to screen the continuum of language ability, from normal to disordered, as found in the general population. 383 children from 147 sib-ships (214 sib-pairs) were genotyped on the Illumina(®) Linkage IVb Marker Panel using three composite language-related phenotypes and a measure of phonological memory (PM). Two regions (10q23.33; 13q33.3) yielded genome-wide significant peaks for linkage with PM. A peak suggestive of linkage was also found at 17q12 for the overall language composite. This study presents two novel genetic loci for the study of language development and disorders, but fails to replicate findings by previous groups. Possible reasons for this are discussed.

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 score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes Brain & BehaviorSame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207