MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

RIC3 variants are not associated with Parkinson's disease in French-Canadians and French

2017· article· en· W2578803655 on OpenAlexaff
Jay P. Ross, Nicolas Dupré, Yves Dauvilliers, Stephanie Strong, Alexandre Dionne-Laporte, Patrick A. Dion, Guy A. Rouleau, Ziv Gan‐Or

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurobiology of Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité LavalMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
KeywordsHaplotypeExonGeneticsGeneParkinson's diseaseBiologySequence (biology)DiseaseAssociation testGenotypeMedicineSingle-nucleotide polymorphismInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variants in the RIC3 gene have recently been suggested as a novel cause of Parkinson's disease (PD). Herein, the entire RIC3 gene was sequenced in a French-Canadian and French sample series of 535 PD patients and 527 unaffected controls. The effect of single variants and the combined effect of variants were calculated. Sequence Kernel association tests (SKAT, SKAT-O) were done on the entire gene level, and on the different domains and exons of RIC3. A total of 28 common and rare variants were identified in patients and controls. No significant association was found between any variant and haplotype in RIC3 and PD, and there was no over-representation of RIC3 variants at the entire gene, domain, or exon levels in patients versus controls. Our results do not support a role for RIC3 mutations as a common cause of PD in the French-Canadian and French populations.

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)0.001
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 score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.211
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 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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNeurobiology of AgingSame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207