MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169196357 · doi:10.1136/thorax.58.9.790

Lack of association of group specific component haplotypes with lung function in smokers

2003· article· en· W2169196357 on OpenAlexaff
Ikuma Kasuga

Bibliographic record

VenueThorax · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's Hospital
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsHaplotypeMedicineCOPDLungLung functionCohortPulmonary function testingGenotypeSingle-nucleotide polymorphismInternal medicinePathologicalGeneticsBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Airway inflammation may affect the decrease in lung function that occurs in response to cigarette smoke, and is an important pathological feature in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Group specific component (GC) can act as an inflammatory mediator and may therefore have important influences on the inflammatory reaction in the airway. Several reports have described associations between GC haplotypes and COPD but these remain controversial. In addition, most of these studies were based on a small number of subjects. METHODS: We have studied the contribution of GC haplotypes to the level of lung function in a large cohort of smokers with high or low lung function (mean FEV(1) % predicted 91.8 and 62.6, respectively). The frequency of the three major GC haplotypes (1S, 1F and 2) was investigated in 537 individuals with high lung function and 533 with low lung function. RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the frequency of any GC haplotype between the high and low lung function groups. There was also no significant difference between the groups in genotype frequency of the two single nucleotide polymorphisms that underlie the haplotypes. CONCLUSION: The GC haplotype does not contribute to reduced lung function in this cohort of smokers.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThoraxSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207