MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415482190 · doi:10.1101/2025.10.21.25337184

Copy Number Variant Duplications Associated with Essential Tremor

2025· preprint· W4415482190 on OpenAlexaff
Miranda Medeiros, Calwing Liao, Allison A. Dilliott, Jay P. Ross, Veikko Vuokila, Farah Aboasali, Charles-Etienne Castonguay, Dan Spiegelman, Franziska Hopfner, Carles Vilariño‐Güell, Elena García‐Martín, Hortensia Alonso‐Navarro, José A. G. Agúndez, Félix Javier Jiménez‐Jiménez, Pau Pástor, Alex Rajput, Ali H. Rajput, Günther Deuschl, Gregor Kuhlenbäumer, Simon Girard, Sali M.K. Farhan, Patrick A. Dion, Guy A. Rouleau

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à ChicoutimiUniversity of SaskatchewanMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopy-number variationMissing heritability problemGene duplicationHeritabilityGeneSegmental duplicationSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenomeGenome-wide association study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Essential tremor (ET) is a complex neurological disorder with a strong genetic basis, yet there remains a disparity between the estimated heritability and the currently known genetic risk of ET. This missing heritability of ET has led to a lack of appropriate treatments and has exacerbated the misdiagnosis of patients. Methods To address the missing heritability of ET, we called copy number variants (CNVs) in a large cohort of ET patients (n=1,853) and unaffected controls (n=10,336). CNVs were called from single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray data using PennCNV and QuantiSNP and only rare CNVs (frequency < 1%) intersecting protein coding regions of the genome were retained for analysis. To investigate whether CNV occurrence was associated with ET, analyses were conducted on global burden, pathogenicity burden, gene set enrichment, and gene burden. Results Global duplication burden by number of CNVs (OR = 1.71 [1.30-2.23], p = 9.8×10 -5 ), CNV length (OR = 1.08 [1.02-1.15], p = 7.1×10 -3 ), and number of genes affected by CNVs (OR = 1.11 [1.05-1.18], p = 5.8×10 -4 ) were all significantly elevated in ET patients compared to controls. Duplications sized 100kbs-500kbs largely explained these associations (number of CNVs: OR = 2.14 [1.54-2.94], p = 3.95×10 -6 ; number of genes: OR = 1.15 [1.06-1.23], p = 3.8×10 -4 ). Across gene-sets, duplications affecting Mendeliome genes (OR = 2.01 [1.36-2.91], p = 3.4×10 -4 ), genes highly expressed in the brain (OR = 1.80 [1.27-2.46], p = 5.06×10 -4 ), and genes expressed in the cerebellum (OR = 1.16 [1.06-1.27], p = 7.31×10 -4 ) were significantly enriched for CNVs in ET patients compared to controls. Finally, gene-based burden testing indicated that duplications involving ZNF813 were significantly less frequent in ET patients than in controls (OR = 0.0411 [0.0026-0.66], p = 2.22×10 -5 ). No associations with deletion events were observed. Conclusions Our results point to rare copy number duplications mapping to protein coding regions of the genome as likely contributors to ET genetic risk. However, specific susceptibility genes could not be reliably identified, highlighting the need for further studies to clarify the genetic architecture of ET.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→