Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging traits as endophenotypes for genetic mapping in epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade, the field of imaging genomics has combined high-throughput genotype data with quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (QMRI) measures to identify genes associated with brain structure, cognition, and several brain-related disorders. Despite its successful application in different psychiatric and neurological disorders, the field has yet to be advanced in epilepsy. In this article we examine the relevance of imaging genomics for future genetic studies in epilepsy from three perspectives. First, we discuss prior genome-wide genetic mapping efforts in epilepsy, considering the possibility that some studies may have been constrained by inherent theoretical and methodological limitations of the genome-wide association study (GWAS) method. Second, we offer a brief overview of the imaging genomics paradigm, from its original inception, to its role in the discovery of important risk genes in a number of brain-related disorders, and its successful application in large-scale multinational research networks. Third, we provide a comprehensive review of past studies that have explored the eligibility of brain QMRI traits as endophenotypes for epilepsy. While the breadth of studies exploring QMRI-derived endophenotypes in epilepsy remains narrow, robust syndrome-specific neuroanatomical QMRI traits have the potential to serve as accessible and relevant intermediate phenotypes for future genetic mapping efforts in epilepsy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".