MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2288090800

Candidate genetic polymorphisms for asthma in Chinese schoolchildren from Hong Kong.

2004· article· en· W2288090800 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew J. Sandford, Hui‐Wen Chan, Gary Wong, C. K. W. Lai, Moira Chan‐Yeung

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Polymorphisms in several genes have been associated with asthma, atopy and bronchial hyperresponsiveness in white and Japanese populations. In this study we tested for associations of 11 polymorphisms with wheeze and asthma in 10-year-old Chinese schoolchildren. METHODS: The subjects were 107 children who had wheeze in the last 12 months and 118 without wheeze in the last 12 months. They were randomly selected from 3110 children who took part in Phase II of the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood. These schoolchildren underwent questionnaire, spirometry and methacholine challenge testing. RESULTS: The A allele of the tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFA) G-308A polymorphism was significantly associated with wheeze in the last 12 months (odds ratio [OR] 2.1, P = 0.04) and current asthma (OR 2.6, P = 0.006). When stratified by gender, these associations were only seen in the female study participants. In girls, the OR for the TNFA-308A allele and wheeze in the last 12 months was 3.6 (P = 0.01) and for current asthma it was 6.0 (P = 0.0006). CONCLUSION: The A allele of the TNFA G-308A polymorphism was a risk factor for asthma-related phenotypes in girls but not boys.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations26
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicAsthma and respiratory diseases→French-language works237,207→