MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255607453 · doi:10.1177/135245850100700102

A meta-analysis of genomic screens in multiple sclerosis

2001· review· en· W4255607453 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Multiple Sclerosis Society
KeywordsLinkage (software)GeneticsGenetic linkageMultiplexLod scoreGenotypingGenomeBiologyChromosomeGene mappingGeneGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We combined the raw genotyping data from three large multiple sclerosis genome screens and performed a global meta-analysis in order to compare and summarize the linkage results from the different studies. In alphabetical order, the screens provided data from 442 markers typed in 52 multiplex families with a total of 133 affected individuals (the American screen), 314 markers typed in 128 families with 264 affecteds (the British screen) and 257 markers typed in 61 families with a total of 139 affected subjects (the Canadian screen). Multipoint analysis of these data was performed using the GENEHUNTER program. The highest non-parametric linkage (NPL) score in the meta-analysis was observed on chromosome 17q11 (NPL score 2.58), although this score falls short of genome-wide significance. A total of eight regions had NPL scores greater than 2.0. One of the regions with an NPL score greater than 2.0 was the HLA region on chromosome 6p21 (NPL=2.2). This region is known, from association studies, to be involved in MS susceptibility, but the modest linkage result observed here suggests the encoded susceptibility effect is not large compared with the high familial recurrence in MS (lambda approximately 20). Overall, our linkage results suggest that MS is likely to be multigenic in its genetic susceptibility.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.018
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.587
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.190 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations39
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultiple Sclerosis JournalSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207