Meta‐Analysis of Genome‐wide Linkage Studies in BMI and Obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to provide an overall assessment of genetic linkage data of BMI and BMI-defined obesity using a nonparametric genome scan meta-analysis. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We identified 37 published studies containing data on over 31,000 individuals from more than >10,000 families and obtained genome-wide logarithm of the odds (LOD) scores, non-parametric linkage (NPL) scores, or maximum likelihood scores (MLS). BMI was analyzed in a pooled set of all studies, as a subgroup of 10 studies that used BMI-defined obesity, and for subgroups ascertained through type 2 diabetes, hypertension, or subjects of European ancestry. RESULTS: Bins at chromosome 13q13.2- q33.1, 12q23-q24.3 achieved suggestive evidence of linkage to BMI in the pooled analysis and samples ascertained for hypertension. Nominal evidence of linkage to these regions and suggestive evidence for 11q13.3-22.3 were also observed for BMI-defined obesity. The FTO obesity gene locus at 16q12.2 also showed nominal evidence for linkage. However, overall distribution of summed rank p values <0.05 is not different from that expected by chance. The strongest evidence was obtained in the families ascertained for hypertension at 9q31.1-qter and 12p11.21-q23 (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Despite having substantial statistical power, we did not unequivocally implicate specific loci for BMI or obesity. This may be because genes influencing adiposity are of very small effect, with substantial genetic heterogeneity and variable dependence on environmental factors. However, the observation that the FTO gene maps to one of the highest ranking bins for obesity is interesting and, while not a validation of this approach, indicates that other potential loci identified in this study should be investigated further.
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 | 0.029 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".