MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328510697 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e32834e5af3

Chromosome 1p36 in migraine with aura

2011· article· en· W2328510697 on OpenAlexafffund
Miles D. Thompson, S E Noble-Topham, Maire E. Percy, Danielle M. Andrade, George C. Ebers

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalSurrey Place CentreUniversity of TorontoLondon Health Sciences Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWellcome TrustOntario Brain Institute
KeywordsAuraFamilial hemiplegic migraineMigraineNeuroscienceMigraine with auraBiologyGeneticsMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Migraine with aura (MA) may share some but not all risk factors with other forms of migraine. As common migraine without aura (MO) has been associated with the chromosome 1p36 locus, we tested its involvement in MA by using two-point parametric linkage analysis to analyze 64 multiplex MA families. A logarithm of the odds score of 1.9 was suggestive of chromosome 1p36 linkage to MA. The transmission disequilibrium test analysis was then performed in 79 nuclear families with one MA parent and one MA offspring. We identified the presence of genetic association at chromosome 1p36 with MA (P=0.045, Bonferroni corrected): the locus encoding the 5HT(1D) receptor gene. Although these data suggest that the 1p36 locus may protect against MA, consistent with the role of the 5HT(1D) receptor in migraine treatment with triptan drugs, the study is subject to the limitations associated with studying a small number of affected families. As a result, we contrast evidence suggesting that the chromosome 1p36 locus is strongly MO associated with our finding that 1p36 has a more limited contribution to MA in the families we analyzed. Further work using a genome-wide association study approach in familial typical migraine, consisting of those affected by MO or MA, will serve to further distinguish how and why MA differs from MO.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207