MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The fragile X continuum: new advances and perspectives

2008· review· en· W2129685304 on OpenAlexaff
Kim Cornish, J Turk, Randi J. Hagerman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disability Research · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeFogarty International CenterU.S. Public Health ServiceWellcome Trust
KeywordsFragile X syndromeFragile xIntellectual disabilityPsychologyContext (archaeology)CognitionDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscienceGeneticsPsychiatryBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fragile X syndrome is the world's most common hereditary cause of intellectual disability in men and to a lesser extent in women. The disorder is caused by the silencing of a single gene on the X chromosome, the Fragile X Mental Retardation Gene-1. A substantial body of research across the disciplines of molecular genetics, child psychiatry and developmental neuroscience bears testament to a decade of exciting and innovative science that has advanced our knowledge about the fragile X 'signature' or influence across cognitive and social development. The core aims of this review are to first discuss fragile X syndrome and premutation involvement in the context of current advances that demonstrate the dynamic nature of the genotype on phenotypic outcomes. Second, to discuss the implications of these recent advances for the development of clinical and educational interventions and resource tools that target specific phenotypic 'signatures' within the fragile X continuum.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations161
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual Disability ResearchSame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207