The Extent of Ossification of Posterior Longitudinal Ligament of the Spine Associated with Nucleotide Pyrophosphatase Gene and Leptin Receptor Gene Polymorphisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. A case-control study using radiograph findings and the PCR assay with regard to the susceptibility and the severity of ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament of the spine (OPLL). Objective. To analyze whether polymorphisms of the nucleotide pyrophosphatase (NPPS) gene and the leptin receptor gene predispose to an increased frequency and severity of OPLL. Summary of Background Data. The NPPS gene is responsible for ectopic ossification in the ttw mouse, an animal model for OPLL. The Zucker fatty rat, another animal model for OPLL, has a missense mutation in the leptin receptor gene. Methods. Analysis of 172 OPLL patients and 93 non-OPLL controls was performed. Radiographs of the cervical, thoracic and lumber spine were analyzed to determine whether OPLL was present and to what degree. Genomic DNA was extracted from all participants. Polymorphisms of the NPPS gene and the leptin receptor gene were analyzed using the PCR assay. The association of the polymorphisms with the development and extent of OPLL were statistically evaluated. Results. No significant association was found between the polymorphisms and the existence of OPLL in both the NPPS and the leptin receptor genes. However, the IVS20–11delT variant in the NPPS gene and the A861G variant in the leptin receptor gene were more frequent in patients with OPLL in the thoracic spine compared with patients whose OPLL was restricted to the cervical spine. Conclusion. The present results suggest that the IVS20–11delT variant of the NPPS gene and the A861G variant of the leptin receptor gene are associated with more extensive OPLL, but not with the frequency with which it occurs. The polymorphisms in the genes encoding nucleotide pyrophosphatase leptin receptor were analyzed in ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament of the spine (OPLL) patients. Results were compared with non-OPLL control subjects. Although no significant association was found between the polymorphisms the susceptibility to OPLL, there was an increased correlation with the extent of OPLL.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".