MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052768955 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010855

Common Variation in ISL1 Confers Genetic Susceptibility for Human Congenital Heart Disease

2010· article· en· W2052768955 on OpenAlexaff
Kristen N. Stevens, Håkon Håkonarson, Pieter A. Doevendans, Bobby P. C. Koeleman, Seema Mital, Jennifer Raue, Joseph Glessner, John G. Coles, Vı́ctor Moreno, Anne Granger, Stephen B. Gruber, Peter J. Gruber

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart diseaseHaplotypeBiologySingle-nucleotide polymorphismCandidate geneGeneticsAlleleGeneMedicineInternal medicineGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common birth abnormality and the etiology is unknown in the overwhelming majority of cases. ISLET1 (ISL1) is a transcription factor that marks cardiac progenitor cells and generates diverse multipotent cardiovascular cell lineages. The fundamental role of ISL1 in cardiac morphogenesis makes this an exceptional candidate gene to consider as a cause of complex congenital heart disease. We evaluated whether genetic variation in ISL1 fits the common variant-common disease hypothesis. A 2-stage case-control study examined 27 polymorphisms mapping to the ISL1 locus in 300 patients with complex congenital heart disease and 2,201 healthy pediatric controls. Eight genic and flanking ISL1 SNPs were significantly associated with complex congenital heart disease. A replication study analyzed these candidate SNPs in 1,044 new cases and 3,934 independent controls and confirmed that genetic variation in ISL1 is associated with risk of non-syndromic congenital heart disease. Our results demonstrate that two different ISL1 haplotypes contribute to risk of CHD in white and black/African American populations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations87
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207