MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132334873 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.10138

Autism and the X chromosome: No linkage to microsatellite loci detected using the affected sibling pair method

2002· article· en· W2132334873 on OpenAlexaff
Chris K. Schutz, Diana Polley, Paula D. Robinson, Maryse Chalifoux, Fabìo Macciardi, Bradley N. White, Jeanette J. A. Holden

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthKingston Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutismGeneticsLocus (genetics)ConcordanceBiologySiblingX chromosomeGenetic linkageHeritability of autismPopulationMicrosatelliteAutism spectrum disorderGenotypeGeneDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyPhenotypeMedicineAllele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The etiology of autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) is poorly understood, although it is clear that genetic factors play a major role. ASDs appear to be a heterogeneous group of disorders, making genetic analysis difficult in the absence of etiologically definable subgroups. The excess of males in the affected population has led to suggestions that an X-linked locus could play a role in the causation of autism or a related pervasive developmental disorder. To examine this, we have investigated the genotypes of 31 families with two or more affected boys, at a series of 16 highly polymorphic loci distributed along the X chromosome with an average interlocus distance of 12 cM, in order to identify regions of significantly increased concordance among pairs of affected brothers. No locus tested showed a significant increase in concordance, supporting findings by others that there are no genes of major effect located on the X chromosome that contribute to increased susceptibility to ASD.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical GeneticsSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207