Genome-Wide Association Study of Antiphospholipid Antibodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The persistent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (APA) may lead to the development of primary or secondary antiphospholipid syndrome. Although the genetic basis of APA has been suggested, the identity of the underlying genes is largely unknown. In this study, we have performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) in an effort to identify susceptibility loci/genes for three main APA: anticardiolipin antibodies (ACL), lupus anticoagulant (LAC), and anti- β 2 glycoprotein I antibodies (anti- β 2GPI). Methods. DNA samples were genotyped using the Affymetrix 6.0 array containing 906,600 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Association of SNPs with the antibody status (positive/negative) was tested using logistic regression under the additive model. Results. We have identified a number of suggestive novel loci with P < E - 05. Although they do not meet the conservative threshold of genome-wide significance, many of the suggestive loci are potential candidates for the production of APA. We have replicated the previously reported associations of HLA genes and APOH with APA but these were not the top loci. Conclusions. We have identified a number of suggestive novel loci for APA that will stimulate follow-up studies in independent and larger samples to replicate our findings.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".