MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062025880 · doi:10.1038/oby.2011.177

Common Variants in <i>FTO, MC4R, TMEM18, PRL, AIF1</i>, and <i>PCSK1</i> Show Evidence of Association With Adult Obesity in the Greek Population

2011· article· en· W2062025880 on OpenAlexaff
Konstantinos Rouskas, Anastasia Kouvatsi, Konstantinos Paletas, Dimitrios Papazoglou, Απόστολος Τσάπας, Stéphane Lobbens, Vincent Vatin, Emmanuelle Durand, Yann Labrune, Jérôme Delplanque, David Meyre, Philippe Froguel

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismObesityLogistic regressionOdds ratioFTO geneGenetic associationDemographyPopulationReceiver operating characteristicOddsMedicineGeneticsBiologyInternal medicineGenotypeGeneSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twenty-four single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been reproducibly associated with obesity. We performed a follow-up study for obesity in the Greek adult population. A total of 510 obese and 469 lean adults were genotyped for 24 SNPs. We tested the association with obesity status using logistic regression and we evaluated the combined genetic risk of 24 SNPs by calculating the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves. We nominally replicated the association with obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m(2)) of six SNPs in or near the FTO, MC4R, TMEM18, PRL, AIF1, and PCSK1 loci (1.28 ≤ odds ratio (OR) ≤ 1.35; 0.004 ≤ P ≤ 0.043). The discrimination ability for obesity was slightly stronger (P = 9.59 × 10(-6)) when the genetic information of the 24 SNPs was added to nongenetic risk factors (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.722) in comparison with nongenetic factors analyzed alone (AUC = 0.685). Our data suggest that SNPs in or near the FTO, MC4R, TMEM18, PRL, AIF1, and PCSK1 loci contribute to obesity risk in the Greek population.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations65
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesitySame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207