MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1953019653 · doi:10.1038/ejhg.2015.170

Search for new loci and low-frequency variants influencing glioma risk by exome-array analysis

2015· article· en· W1953019653 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Kinnersley, Yoichiro Kamatani, Marianne Labussière, Yufei Wang, Pilar Galán, Karima Mokhtari, Jean‐Yves Delattre, Konstantinos Gousias, Johannes Schramm, Minouk J. Schoemaker, Anthony J. Swerdlow, Sarah Fleming, Stefan Herms, Stefanie Heilmann‐Heimbach, Markus M. Nöthen, Matthias Simon, Marc Sanson, Mark Lathrop, Richard S. Houlston

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Human Genetics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill Genome Centre
FundersMedical Research CouncilCancer Research UKWellcome Trust
KeywordsExomeGliomaBiologyExome sequencingIDH2Odds ratioGenome-wide association studyGeneticsOncologyGeneComputational biologyInternal medicineSingle-nucleotide polymorphismMedicineMutationGenotypeIDH1

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To identify protein-altering variants (PAVs) for glioma, we analysed Illumina HumanExome BeadChip exome-array data on 1882 glioma cases and 8079 controls from three independent European populations. In addition to single-variant tests we incorporated information on the predicted functional consequences of PAVs and analysed sets of genes with a higher likelihood of having a role in glioma on the basis of the profile of somatic mutations documented by large-scale sequencing initiatives. Globally there was a strong relationship between effect size and PAVs predicted to be damaging (P=2.29 × 10(-49)); however, these variants which are most likely to impact on risk, are rare (MAF<5%). Although no single variant showed an association which was statistically significant at the genome-wide threshold a number represented promising associations - BRCA2:c.9976A>T, p.(Lys3326Ter), which has been shown to influence breast and lung cancer risk (odds ratio (OR)=2.3, P=4.00 × 10(-4) for glioblastoma (GBM)) and IDH2:c.782G>A, p.(Arg261His) (OR=3.21, P=7.67 × 10(-3), for non-GBM). Additionally, gene burden tests revealed a statistically significant association for HARS2 and risk of GBM (P=2.20 × 10(-6)). Genome scans of low-frequency PAVs represent a complementary strategy to identify disease-causing variants compared with scans based on tagSNPs. Strategies to lessen the multiple testing burden by restricting analysis to PAVs with higher priors affords an opportunity to maximise study power.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Human GeneticsSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207