Hermann Hoffmann’s 1921 Monograph: “The Offspring of Endogenous Psychoses: Genealogical-Characterological Examinations”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five years after the publication of Rüdin's major sibling study, Hermann Hoffmann, working with Rüdin, performed the first systematic study of the risk for dementia praecox (DP) in offspring of DP probands. Field work was limited to 3 months. Hoffmann ascertained families with at least one parent with certain DP, after Kraepelin, with children the youngest of whom were at least 30 years old. These families contained 103 offspring 30 years or older of whom 7 had definite DP and two possible DP for an estimated risk of 6.8%-8.7%. Hoffmann assessed schizoidia in these children, reporting the quite high risk figure of 47.6%. Hoffmann explored a wide range of two and three locus recessive models in his modest sample. He finds Rüdin's two locus recessive model at the boundary of his results and then reviews three additional more complex models. The simplest is a three-locus recessive model which fits his data better. He also explores an oligogenic three locus model with risk classes of individuals with 1 to 6 risk alleles and an epistatic model where two loci form a di-recessive model for schizoidia, and the third locus is a dominant required for the expression of psychosis. Hoffman questioned whether DP was a "unit-character" appropriate for Mendelian analysis and advocated for a much larger study of offspring. His work should be appreciated in light of his enthusiastic endorsement of Nazi eugenic goals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".