MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129918454 · doi:10.1093/infdis/jiu446

Tuberculin Skin Test Negativity Is Under Tight Genetic Control of Chromosomal Region 11p14-15 in Settings With Different Tuberculosis Endemicities

2014· article· en· W2129918454 on OpenAlexafffund
Aurélie Cobat, Christine Poirier, Eileen G. Hoal, Anne Boland, F. de La Rocque, François Corrard, G. Grangé, Mélanie Migaud, Jacinta Bustamante, Stéphanie Boisson‐Dupuis, Jean‐Laurent Casanova, Erwin Schurr, Alexandre Alcaïs, Christophe Delacourt, Laurent Abel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
FundersCHIST-ERACanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleSt. Giles FoundationUniversité Paris DescartesGovernment of Canada
KeywordsTuberculinTuberculosisLocus (genetics)Mycobacterium tuberculosisNegativity effectSkin testImmunologyGenetic linkageBiologyMedicineGeneticsPathologyPsychologyGeneDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A substantial proportion of subjects exposed to a contagious tuberculosis case display lack of tuberculin skin test (TST) reactivity. We previously mapped a major locus (TST1) controlling lack of TST reactivity in families from an area in South Africa where tuberculosis is hyperendemic. Here, we conducted a household tuberculosis contact study in a French area where the endemicity of tuberculosis is low. A genome-wide analysis of TST negativity identified a significant linkage signal (P < 3 × 10(-5)) in close vicinity of TST1. Combined analysis of the 2 samples increased evidence of linkage (P = 2.4 × 10(-6)), further implicating genetic factors located on 11p14-15. This region overlaps the TNF1 locus controlling mycobacteria-driven tumor necrosis factor α production.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations48
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207