MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322495323 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.b.32934

The era of the Dawn of Mendelian research in the field of psychiatry: Rüdin's 1922 review paper “regarding the heredity of mental disturbances”

2023· review· en· W4322495323 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth S. Kendler, Astrid Klee

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part B Neuropsychiatric Genetics · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsanityHeredityMendelian inheritanceDementia praecoxPsychiatryPsychologyGermanPsychoanalysisGenealogyHistoryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On September 27, 1922, Ernst Rüdin gave an address to the Annual Conference of the German Society of Genetics entitled "Regarding the Heredity of Mental Disturbances." Published in a 37-page article, Rüdin reviewed the progress in the field of Mendelian psychiatric genetics, then hardly more than a decade old. Topics included (a) the status of Mendelian analyses of dementia praecox and manic-depressive insanity which had expanded to include two and three locus and early polygenic models and sometimes included, respectively, schizoid and cyclothymic personalities; (b) a critique of theories for the explanation of co-occurrence of different psychiatric disorders within families; and (c) a sharp methodologic critique of Davenport and Rosanoff's contemporary work which emphasized Rüdin's commitment to careful, expert phenotyping, a primary focus on well-validated psychiatric disorders and not broad spectra of putatively inter-related conditions, and an emphasis on rigorous statistical modeling as seen in his continued collaboration with Wilhelm Weinberg.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part B Neuropsychiatric GeneticsSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207