Myopia: Gene-environment Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Myopia has reached epidemic proportions in Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore. This review summarises the evidence for environmental and genetic factors as well as gene-environment interaction for myopia for both epidemiologic studies as well as animal models. METHODS: A literature review was conducted after a Medline search on articles on the genetic or environmental aetiology of myopia in animal or epidemiologic studies. Articles on the methodology of gene-environment studies were also reviewed. All articles reviewed were articles published in peer-reviewed journals. RESULTS: Cross-sectional studies have found a positive association between myopia and near work activity such as reading and writing. Likewise, laboratory research has shown that environmental factors such as visual deprivation may lead to the development of myopia in animals. While linkage studies in humans are currently being conducted to identify possible markers for myopia in the human genome, several neurotransmitters, modulators and growth factors that influence refractive development have already been identified in animal models that may help identify candidate genes. Epidemiologic studies have also evaluated the combined effects of hereditary factors, environmental factors and gene-environment interaction on myopia development. CONCLUSIONS: Both genes and environmental factors may be related to myopia. There are no conclusive studies at present, however, that identify the nature and extent of possible gene-environment interaction. Further linkage analysis, affected sib-pair studies, and family-based association studies may better identify the nature of gene-environment interaction.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".