Rüdin’s 1916 Monograph: On the Inheritance and Primary Origin of Dementia Praecox
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1916, Ernst Rüdin published the first modern family study in the history of psychiatric genetics, the major goal of which was to test whether the pattern of risk in the siblings of dementia praecox (DP) probands followed Mendelian expectations. He utilized systematic ascertainment of probands and multisourced diagnostic assessments of probands and relatives, applying the narrow Kraepelinian concept of DP. In a novel step, he collaborated closely with a statistical geneticist-Wilhelm Weinberg-and applied his sibling, proband, and age correction methods. In his key sample-701 sibships when neither parent had DP-the morbid risk for DP in siblings was 4.48%, much lower than 25% expected for a recessive disorder. Risk for DP was increased by alcoholism or other mental disorders in parents. Other non-DP psychoses were common in both siblings and parents of DP probands. Rüdin discussed several alternative genetic models for DP including a 2-locus recessive, incomplete penetrance, and an oligogenic model. The high rates of other psychoses and psychopathic personalities in relatives might arise, he suggested, because these disorders shared genetic risks with DP. Rüdin established that DP, when carefully studied, ran in families, did not have a simple Mendelian genetic transmission pattern, and appeared likely to be genetically related to other non-DP psychotic disorders and perhaps some kinds of psychopathic personalities. This study, the most important in Rüdin's career, should be viewed in the context of his later extensive support of and collaboration with Nazi eugenic policies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| 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".