Rüdin's Unpublished Family Study From the Early 1920s: “On the Inheritance of Manic‐Depressive Insanity”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ernst Rüdin, an important and controversial figure in the history of psychiatric genetics, published only one major empirical study on siblings of dementia praecox (DP) probands in 1916. He conducted a parallel study of siblings of probands with manic-depressive insanity (MDI), but the resulting monograph, written in the early 1920s, was left incomplete and unpublished. We translated this monograph and here summarize its main findings. The morbid risk for MDI in the siblings of MDI probands with unaffected parents was 7.47%, inconsistent with simple Mendelian models. Working with his data, Weinberg proposed a complex trimeric dominant-recessive Mendelian model for MDI. He also presented several innovative analyses to our knowledge without precedent in prior studies. First, over a 16-year follow-up, a proportion of his proband sample developed DP. The risk for DP and MDI in siblings of those "converted" cases closely resembled risks seen in siblings of definitive DP and not definitive MDI probands. Second, knowing the familial psychopathology of his probands, Rüdin, concerned about his objectivity, asked a colleague to provide the diagnoses blind to the family data. Third, Rüdin presented formal tests for familial coaggregation, showing a modest increased risk for SZ in siblings of MDI probands compared to siblings of "imbecile" and epileptic probands. Fourth, Rüdin suggested that there was a "blending" of clinical features in sibships containing both MDI and SZ cases, with the SZ cases having more remitting courses and the MDI more prone to periodic catatonic syndromes.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".