No genetic support for a contribution of prostaglandins to the aetiology of androgenetic alopecia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Funding sources: The study was supported by the Life & Brain GmbH and the Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach‐Stiftung. Conflicts of interest: none declared. Madam, Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is a common age‐dependent trait, characterized by a progressive loss of hair from the scalp. The hair loss may commence during puberty and up to 80% of white men experience some degree of AGA during their lifetime.1 Research has established that two essential aetiological factors for AGA are a genetic predisposition and the presence of androgens (male sex hormones).1 2 A recent meta‐analysis of genome‐wide association studies (GWAS) has increased the number of identified loci associated with this trait at the molecular level to a total of eight.3 However, despite these successes, a large fraction of the genetic contribution remains to be identified. One way to identify further genetic loci is to combine the resource of GWAS datasets with knowledge about specific biological factors likely to be involved in the development of disease. The focused evaluation of a limited number of candidate genes in GWAS datasets avoids the necessity for extensive correction for multiple testing, which typically limits the power for detecting genetic loci at a genome‐wide level.4 Because the presence of genetic association suggests that candidate genes are likely to operate early in the causative chain of events leading to the phenotype, this approach may also function to favour biological pathways for their importance in the development of AGA.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.134 | 0.023 |
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".