Genetics of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in the age of genomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: According to recent evidence, susceptibility to bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in preterm infants is predominantly inherited. The purpose of this review is to discuss current published genetic association studies in light of the accumulated knowledge in genomics. RECENT FINDINGS: Major advances in the development of next-generation genotyping and sequencing platforms, statistical methodologies, inventories of functional outcome of some common genetic polymorphisms and large-scale cataloguing of genetic variability among many of the world's ethnic populations have greatly facilitated the study of polygenic conditions. For BPD, genetic-association studies have primarily focused on components of innate (e.g. first-line) immune and antioxidant defences, mechanisms of vascular and lung remodelling, and surfactant proteins. However, studies have been limited in sample size and therefore fraught with a high probability of false-positive and false-negative associations. Nonetheless, candidate gene associations have indicated some novel biological pathways and provide a conceptual framework for the design of larger, collaborative population-based studies. SUMMARY: Although studies to date have not been able to identify reproducible genetic risk markers for BPD, they have directed us towards new, promising research avenues.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".