MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169354649 · doi:10.1186/1755-8166-4-7

Frequency of the 7q11.23 inversion polymorphism in transmitting parents of children with Williams syndrome and in the general population does not differ between North America and Europe

2011· article· en· W2169354649 on OpenAlexafffund
Colleen A. Morris, Carolyn Β. Mervis, Lucy R. Osborne

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cytogenetics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicWilliams Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsWilliams syndromePopulationInversion (geology)Population inversionDemographyBiologyGeologyPhysicsSociologySeismologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inversion of the Williams syndrome (WS) region on chromosome 7q11.23 has previously been shown to occur at a higher frequency in the transmitting parents of children with WS than in the general population, suggesting that it predisposes to the WS deletion. Frohnauer et al. recently reported that the frequency of this inversion is not elevated in the parents of children with WS in Germany relative to the German general population. We have compared Frohnauer et al.'s data to those from three previously published studies (Hobart et al., Bayes et al., Osborne et al.), all of which reported a significantly higher rate of 7q11.23 inversion in transmitting parents than in the general population. Results indicated that Frohnauer et al.'s data are consistent with previously reported frequencies of 7q11.23 inversion in North America and Spain in both transmitting parents and the general population.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular CytogeneticsSame topicWilliams Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207