Faculty Opinions recommendation of Genomewide scan of hoarding in sib pairs in which both sibs have Gilles de la Tourette syndrome.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A genome scan of the hoarding phenotype (a component of obsessive-compulsive disorder) was conducted on 77 sib pairs collected by the Tourette Syndrome Association International Consortium for Genetics (TSAICG). All sib pairs were concordant for a diagnosis of Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (GTS). However, the analyses reported here were conducted for hoarding as both a dichotomous trait and a quantitative trait. Not all sib pairs in the sample were concordant for hoarding. Standard linkage analyses were performed using GENEHUNTER and Haseman-Elston methods. In addition, novel analyses with a recursive-partitioning technique were employed. Significant allele sharing was observed for both the dichotomous and the quantitative hoarding phenotypes for markers at 4q34-35 ( ), by use of GENEHUNTER, and at 5q35.2-35.3 ( ) and 17q25 P p .0007 P p .000002 ( ), by use of the revisited Haseman-Elston method. The 4q site is in proximity to D4S1625, which P p .00002 was identified by the TSAICG as a region linked to the GTS phenotype. The recursive-partitioning technique examined multiple markers simultaneously. Results suggest joint effects of specific loci on 5q and 4q, with an overall P value of .000003. Although P values were not adjusted for multiple comparison, nearly all were much smaller than the customary significance level of .0001 for genomewide scans.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".