Gender‐specific phenotypic expression and screening strategies in C282Y‐linked haemochromatosis: a study of 9396 French people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most features of C282Y-linked haemochromatosis support the implementation of population screening of the disorder in Caucasians. However, the penetrance of C282Y homozygosity is poorly documented and the strategy for population screening remains debated. Nine thousand three hundred and ninety-six subjects (3367 men, aged 25-40 years, and 6029 women, aged 35-50 years), attending three Health Appraisal Centres, were genotyped and assessed with respect to clinical and biochemical signs of haemochromatosis. Discriminant, logistic regression and graphic analysis were used to predict homozygosity. Results were validated in 135 homozygotes detected through other family and population studies. Fifty-four subjects (10 men and 44 women) were homozygous for C282Y. All men had abnormal iron status and most had mild clinical symptoms compatible with haemochromatosis. Identification of all homozygous men required a transferrin saturation (TS) threshold of 50% in the study group (90% specificity) and of 40% in the validation group. Homozygous women differed clinically from non-homozygotes for the presence of distal arthralgias only (18%vs 6%, P < 0.03). Thirteen (29%) were iron-deficient (serum ferritin < 13 micro g/l) and undetectable by biochemical tests. Although the population studied was not fully representative of the general population, our data strongly suggests that, in young men, large-scale screening for C282Y homozygosity is justified and can be achieved by using TS prescreening. However, in premenopausal women, large-scale screening remains to be justified with respect to the natural history of haemochromatosis and should be directly genotypic.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".