MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072426839 · doi:10.1359/jbmr.2000.15.7.1376

Association of a Polymorphism in the <i>TNFR2</i> Gene with Low Bone Mineral Density

2000· article· en· W2072426839 on OpenAlexaff
Loretta D. Spotila, Henry Rodriguez, Michael Koch, K. Adams, John Caminis, Harriet S. Tenenhouse, Alan Tenenhouse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBone Metabolism and Diseases
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's HospitalMcGill University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBone mineralGeneticsAssociation (psychology)Polymorphism (computer science)MedicineGeneBone densityInternal medicineBiologyGenotypeOsteoporosisPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous genetic linkage data suggested that a gene on chromosome 1p36.2-36.3 might be linked to low bone mineral density (BMD). Here, we examine the gene for tumor necrosis factor receptor 2 (TNFR2), a candidate gene within that interval, for association with low BMD in a group of 159 unrelated individuals. We assess two polymorphic sites within the gene, a microsatellite repeat within intron 4, and a three-nucleotide variation in the 3' untranslated region (UTR) of the gene. The latter has five alleles of which the rarest allele is associated with low spinal BMD Z score (p = 0.008). Lowest mean spinal BMD Z scores were observed for individuals having genotypes that were heterozygous for the rarest allele. No homozygotes for the rarest allele were observed. Preliminary analysis suggests that there is a difference in the genotype frequency distribution between the group with low BMD and a control group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations45
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicBone Metabolism and DiseasesFrench-language works237,207