The Heritability of Glaucoma-Related Traits Corneal Hysteresis, Central Corneal Thickness, Intraocular Pressure, and Choroidal Blood Flow Pulsatility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to investigate the heritability of potential glaucoma endophenotypes. We estimated for the first time the heritability of the pulsatility of choroidal blood flow. We also sought to confirm the heritability of corneal hysteresis, central corneal thickness, and 3 ways of measuring intraocular pressure. METHODS: Measurements were performed on 96 first-degree relatives recruited from Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital in Montreal. Corneal hysteresis was determined using the Reichert Ocular Response Analyser. Central corneal thickness was measured with an ultrasound pachymeter. Three measures of intraocular pressure were obtained: Goldmann-correlated and corneal compensated intraocular pressure using the Ocular Response Analyser, and Pascal intraocular pressure using the Pascal Dynamic Contour Tonometer. The pulsatility of choroidal blood velocity and flow were measured in the sub-foveolar choroid using single-point laser Doppler flowmetry (Oculix). We estimated heritability using maximum-likelihood variance components methods implemented in the SOLAR software. RESULTS: No significant heritability was detected for the pulsatility of choroidal blood flow or velocity. The Goldman-correlated, corneal compensated, and Pascal measures of intraocular pressure measures were all significantly heritable at 0.94, 0.79, and 0.53 after age and sex adjustment (p = 0.0003, p = 0.0023, p = 0.0239). Central corneal thickness was significantly heritable at 0.68 (p = 0.0078). Corneal hysteresis was highly heritable but the estimate was at the upper boundary of 1.00 preventing us from giving a precise estimate. CONCLUSION: Corneal hysteresis, central corneal thickness, and intraocular pressure are all heritable and may be suitable as glaucoma endophenotypes. The pulsatility of choroidal blood flow and blood velocity were not significantly heritable in this sample.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".