MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043716000 · doi:10.1080/19338244.2014.937381

Heavy metals, organic solvents, and multiple sclerosis: An exploratory look at gene-environment interactions

2014· article· en· W2043716000 on OpenAlexaff
Melanie Napier, Charles Poole, Glen A. Satten, Allison E. Ashley‐Koch, Ruth Ann Marrie, Dhelia Williamson

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Environmental & Occupational Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesU.S. Public Health ServiceNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsOdds ratioMultiple sclerosisSingle-nucleotide polymorphismConfidence intervalGeneLogistic regressionMercury (programming language)Case-control studyMedicinePopulationInternal medicineGeneticsEnvironmental chemistryBiologyChemistryEnvironmental healthImmunologyGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exposure to heavy metals and organic solvents are potential etiologic factors for multiple sclerosis (MS), but their interaction with MS-associated genes is under-studied. The authors explored the relationship between environmental exposure to lead, mercury, and solvents and 58 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in MS-associated genes. Data from a population-based case-control study of 217 prevalent MS cases and 496 age-, race-, gender-, and geographically matched controls were used to fit conditional logistic regression models of the association between the chemical, gene, and MS, adjusting for education and ancestry. MS cases were more likely than controls to report lead (odds ratio [OR] = 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07, 3.86) and mercury exposure (OR = 2.06; 95% CI: 1.08, 3.91). Findings of potential gene-environment interactions between SNPs in TNF-α, TNF-β, TCA-β, VDR, MBP, and APOE, and lead, mercury, or solvents should be considered cautiously due to limited sample size.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations56
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Environmental & Occupational HealthSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207