MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145492845 · doi:10.1001/archneurol.2007.3

Candidate Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms From a Genomewide Association Study of Alzheimer Disease

2007· article· en· W2145492845 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hao Li, Sally Wetten, Li Li, Pamela L. St. Jean, Ruchi Upmanyu, Linda Surh, David A. Hosford, Michael R. Barnes, J. D. Briley, Michael Borrie, Natalie Coletta, Richard G. Delisle, Daniella Dhalla, Margaret G. Ehm, Howard Feldman, Luis Fornazzari, Serge Gauthier, Neil Goodgame, Danilo Guzman, Sandra Noll Hammond, Paul Hollingworth, Ging‐Yuek Robin Hsiung, Joan Johnson, Devon D. Kelly, Ron Keren, Andrew Kertesz, Karen S. King, Simon Lovestone, Inge Loy-English, Paul M. Matthews, Michael J. Owen, Mary Plumpton, William Pryse‐Phillips, Rab K. Prinjha, Jill Richardson, Ann M. Saunders, Andrew J. Slater, Peter St George‐Hyslop, Sandra W. Stinnett, Jina Swartz, Rachel L. Taylor, John R. Wherrett, Julie Williams, David P. Yarnall, Rachel A. Gibson, Michael C. Irizarry, Lefkos Middleton, Allen D. Roses

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Neurology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsOdds ratioSingle-nucleotide polymorphismMedicineLinkage disequilibriumConfidence intervalLogistic regressionHazard ratioDemographyGerontologyInternal medicineGeneticsGenotypeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with risk and age at onset of Alzheimer disease (AD) in a genomewide association study of 469 438 SNPs. DESIGN: Case-control study with replication. SETTING: Memory referral clinics in Canada and the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: The hypothesis-generating data set consisted of 753 individuals with AD by National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Diseases and Stroke/Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association criteria recruited from 9 memory referral clinics in Canada and 736 ethnically matched control subjects; control subjects were recruited from nonbiological relatives, friends, or spouses of the patients and did not exhibit cognitive impairment by history or cognitive testing. The follow-up data set consisted of 418 AD cases and 249 nondemented control cases from the United Kingdom Medical Research Council Genetic Resource for Late-Onset AD recruited from clinics at Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, and King's College London, London, England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for association of SNPs with AD by logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, education, study site, and French Canadian ancestry (for the Canadian data set). Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals from Cox proportional hazards regression for age at onset with similar covariate adjustments. RESULTS: Unadjusted, SNP RS4420638 within APOC1 was strongly associated with AD due entirely to linkage disequilibrium with APOE. In the multivariable adjusted analyses, 3 SNPs within the top 120 by P value in the logistic analysis and 1 in the Cox analysis of the Canadian data set provided additional evidence for association at P< .05 within the United Kingdom Medical Research Council data set: RS7019241 (GOLPH2), RS10868366 (GOLPH2), RS9886784 (chromosome 9), and RS10519262 (intergenic between ATP8B4 and SLC27A2). CONCLUSIONS: Our genomewide association analysis again identified the APOE linkage disequilibrium region as the strongest genetic risk factor for AD. This could be a consequence of the coevolution of more than 1 susceptibility allele, such as APOC1, in this region. We also provide new evidence for additional candidate genetic risk factors for AD that can be tested in further studies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations508
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of NeurologySame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207