MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119727850 · doi:10.1186/gm372

De novo mutations in neurological and psychiatric disorders: effects, diagnosis and prevention

2012· review· en· W2119727850 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Gauthier, Guy A. Rouleau

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Medicine · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman geneticsDiseaseMedicinePsychiatryBioinformaticsGeneticsBiologyGenePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurological and psychiatric disorders account for a considerable proportion of the global disease burden. Although there is a high heritability and a significant genetic component in these disorders, the genetic cause of most cases has yet to be identified. Advances in DNA sequencing allowing the analysis of the whole human genome in a single experiment have led to an acceleration of the discovery of the genetic factors associated with human disease. Recent studies using these platforms have highlighted the important role of de novo mutations in neurological and psychiatric disorders. These findings have opened new avenues into the understanding of genetic disease mechanisms. These discoveries, combined with the increasing ease with which we can sequence the human genome, have important implications for diagnosis, prevention and treatment. Here, we present an overview of the recent discovery of de novo mutations using key examples of neurological and psychiatric disorders. We also discuss the impact of technological developments on diagnosis and prevention.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome MedicineSame topicGenomics and Rare DiseasesFrench-language works237,207