Association of the TLR4 Asp299Gly polymorphism with lung function in relation to body mass index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown conflicting results for the association between TLR4 polymorphism (Asp299Gly) and lung function. We investigated the influence of TLR4 Asp299Gly, a polymorphism, on lung function in a community population. METHODS: In 2003, a cross-sectional survey was conducted to assess the respiratory health of residents living in and around the town of Humboldt, Saskatchewan, Canada. There were 2090 adults age 18-79 years who completed a questionnaire that included a medical and smoking history, as well as socio-economic and lifestyle variables. Genetic information and lung function test measurements were available on 1725 subjects (754 males and 971 females) of the 2090 respondents. These subjects were selected for further analysis to investigate the association between TLR4 Asp299Gly genotype and forced expiratory volume in the first second in liters (FEV1), forced vital capacity in liters (FVC), FEV1/FVC ratio, and forced expiratory flow rate in liters/second (FEF25-75). Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to investigate associations. RESULTS: Adjusted mean values of FEV1 and FVC were significantly different between TLR4 wild type and TLR4 variant groups [Mean +/- S.E.: (TLR4 wild type - FEV1: 3.18 +/- 0.02, FVC: 3.95 +/- 0.03; TLR4 variant - FEV1: 3.31 +/- 0.06, FVC: 4.14 +/- 0.07)]. Based on multivariable regression analysis, we observed that body mass index (BMI) was associated with decreased FEV1/FVC ratio and FEF25-75 in TLR4 variant group but not in wild type group. CONCLUSION: BMI may modify the associations of TLR4 Asp299Gly polymorphism with FEV1/FVC ratio and FEF25-75.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".