MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166371133 · doi:10.1093/aje/kws031

The Association Between Complement Component 2/Complement Factor B Polymorphisms and Age-related Macular Degeneration: A HuGE Review and Meta-Analysis

2012· review· en· W2166371133 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ammarin Thakkinstian, Mark McEvoy, Usha Chakravarthy, Subhabrata Chakrabarti, Gareth J. McKay, Euijung Ryu, Giuliana Silvestri, Inderjeet Kaur, Peter J. Francis, Takeshi Iwata, Masakazu Akahori, Astrid Arning, Albert O. Edwards, Johanna M. Seddon, John Attia

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Epidemiology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Eye InstituteTufts University School of MedicineNational Institutes of HealthQueen's UniversityLeibniz-GemeinschaftTufts Medical CenterMahidol UniversityHunter Medical Research InstituteUniversity of Oregon
KeywordsMinor allele frequencyAlleleOdds ratioSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenotypeMeta-analysisAllele frequencyRelative riskConfidence intervalMacular degenerationGeneticsPopulationMedicineBiologyInternal medicineGeneOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors performed a systematic review of the association of complement component 2(C2)/complement factor B (CFB) gene polymorphisms with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). In total, data from 19 studies published between 2006 and 2011 were pooled for 4 polymorphisms: rs9332739 and rs547154 in the C2 gene and rs4151667 and rs641153 in the CFB gene. Data extraction and assessments for risk of bias were independently performed by 2 reviewers. Allele frequencies and allele and genotypic effects were pooled. Heterogeneity and publication bias were explored. Pooled minor allele frequencies for all 4 SNPs were between 4.7% and 9.6% for all polymorphisms, except for an Indian population in which the C allele at rs9332739 was the major allele. For the C2 polymorphisms, the minor C allele at rs9332739 and the minor T allele at rs547154 carried estimated relative risks (odds ratios) of 0.55 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46, 0.65) and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.39, 0.57), respectively. For the CFB polymorphisms, the minor A alleles at rs4151667 and rs614153 carried estimated risks of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.45, 0.64) and 0.41 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.51), respectively. These allele effects contributed to an absolute lowering of the risk of all AMD in Caucasian populations by 2.0%-6.0%. This meta-analysis provides a robust estimate of the protective association of C2/CFB with AMD.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations61
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of EpidemiologySame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207