MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164859085 · doi:10.1002/gepi.20276

Genetic association with rheumatoid arthritis—Genetic Analysis Workshop 15: summary of contributions from Group 2

2007· article· en· W2164859085 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marsha Wilcox, Li Zhong, William Tapper

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetic Epidemiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRheumatoid arthritisGenetic associationCandidate geneGenome-wide association studyAssociation (psychology)Genetic analysisHaplotypeGeneticsBiologyMedicineGeneInternal medicineGenotypeSingle-nucleotide polymorphismPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The papers in presentation group 2 of Genetic Analysis Workshop 15 (GAW15) conducted association analyses of rheumatoid arthritis data. The analyses were carried out primarily in the data provided by the North American Rheumatoid Arthritis Consortium (NARAC). One group conducted analyses in the data provided by the Canadian Rheumatoid Arthritis Genetics Study (CRAGS). Analysis strategies included genome-wide scans, the examination of candidate genes, and investigations of a region of interest on chromosome 18q21. Most authors employed relatively new methods, proposed extensions of existing methods, or introduced completely novel methods for aspects of association analysis. There were several common observations; a group of papers using a variety of methods found stronger association, on chromosomes 6 and 18 and in candidate gene PTPN22 among women with early onset. Generally, models that considered haplotypes or multiple markers showed stronger evidence for association than did single marker analyses.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.010

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetic EpidemiologySame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207