Quantitative assessment of skin, hair, and iris variation in a diverse sample of individuals and associated genetic variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The main goals of this study are to 1) quantitatively measure skin, hair, and iris pigmentation in a diverse sample of individuals, 2) describe variation within and between these samples, and 3) demonstrate how quantitative measures can facilitate genotype-phenotype association tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We quantitatively characterize skin, hair, and iris pigmentation using the Melanin (M) Index (skin) and CIELab values (hair) in 1,450 individuals who self-identify as African American, East Asian, European, Hispanic, or South Asian. We also quantify iris pigmentation in a subset of these individuals using CIELab values from high-resolution iris photographs. We compare mean skin M index and hair and iris CIELab values among populations using ANOVA and MANOVA respectively and test for genotype-phenotype associations in the European sample. RESULTS: All five populations are significantly different for skin (P <2 × 10(-16) ) and hair color (P <2 × 10(-16) ). Our quantitative analysis of iris and hair pigmentation reinforces the continuous, rather than discrete, nature of these traits. We confirm the association of three loci (rs16891982, rs12203592, and rs12913832) with skin pigmentation and four loci (rs12913832, rs12203592, rs12896399, and rs16891982) with hair pigmentation. Interestingly, the derived rs12203592 T allele located within the IRF4 gene is associated with lighter skin but darker hair color. DISCUSSION: The quantitative methods used here provide a fine-scale assessment of pigmentation phenotype and facilitate genotype-phenotype associations, even with relatively small sample sizes. This represents an important expansion of current investigations into pigmentation phenotype and associated genetic variation by including non-European and admixed populations. Am J Phys Anthropol 160:570-581, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".