MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390599902 · doi:10.5376/cmb.2024.14.0001

Genomic Prediction and its Association with the Development of Dementia disease in the Elderly

2024· article· en· W4390599902 on OpenAlex
Xiaojun Li, Shuiji Zhang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational Molecular Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaGenomicsDiseaseGenome-wide association studyData scienceGenetic associationAssociation (psychology)Personalized medicineBioinformaticsComputer scienceComputational biologyMedicinePsychologyArtificial intelligenceBiologyGenomeSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneticsGenePathologyGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dementia is a severe neurological disorder involving complex interactions between various genetic and environmental factors. This paper explores the association between genomic prediction and the development of dementia in the elderly. Through a systematic review of existing research, the study delves into genomics, the genetic basis of dementia, and the etiology related to the genome. The research further examines the methods and applications of genomic prediction, focusing on the use of polygenic risk scores and machine learning algorithms in dementia studies. Through case analyses of large-scale genomic studies, key genes associated with dementia, such as Alzheimer's disease, are revealed. Additionally, the paper thoroughly analyzes the major findings of existing research, emphasizing the filling of knowledge gaps and the provision of new insights. Finally, the paper discusses the challenges faced by genomic prediction, including methodological difficulties, challenges in data interpretation, ethical and privacy concerns, and more. Looking ahead to future research directions, the paper highlights the establishment of personalized genomic prediction models, the application of new technologies, and the potential value of genomic prediction in early diagnosis and prevention of dementia.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.219 · 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