MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334848682 · doi:10.1515/jpem.2004.17.9.1215

Lack of Association of Birth Size with Polymorphisms of Two Imprinted Genes, IGF2R and GRB10

2004· article· en· W2334848682 on OpenAlexaff
Asterios Kukuvitis, Ioannis Georgiou, Maria Syrrou, Styliani Andronikou, Z Dickerman, Ayesha Islam, Jennifer A. McCann, Constantin Polychronakos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenomic imprintingLinkage disequilibriumAlleleGeneticsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismSNPImprinting (psychology)GenotypeGeneMedicineGenetic associationInsulin-like growth factor 2 receptorBiologyInsulin-like growth factor 1 receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about the determinants of birth size variability among individuals. Maternal and nutritional factors have been studied, but familial clustering suggests genetic factors as well. As a first step in testing this hypothesis, we examined common sequence variants in IGF2R and GRB10, two genes involved in the regulation of growth and subject to parental imprinting. The IGF2R gene was scanned with five polymorphisms spanning the coding and 3'-UTR for possible association with birth size in a set of 97 normal newborns in Greece. In addition, a silent SNP in GRB10 exon 2 was similarly tested as an exploratory first step. Birth weight and length were compared between groups of newborns divided according to which allele they had received from heterozygous parents. No significant differences were found between alleles in either gene, examined either by parental origin or in aggregate. Thus, we found no evidence that IGF2R variants modulate intrauterine growth within the normal range. If such variants exist in GRB10, they are not in linkage disequilibrium with the marker studied.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Endocrinology and MetabolismSame topicGenetic Syndromes and ImprintingFrench-language works237,207