Effect of Genetic Polymorphisms on Development of Gout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate the association between genetic polymorphisms and gout in Japanese patients, and to investigate the cumulative effects of multiple genetic factors on the development of gout. METHODS: Subjects were 153 Japanese male patients with gout and 532 male controls. The genotypes of 11 polymorphisms in the 10 genes that have been indicated to be associated with serum uric acid levels or gout were determined. The cumulative effects of the genetic polymorphisms were investigated using a weighted genotype risk score (wGRS) based on the number of risk alleles and the OR for gout. A model to discriminate between patients with gout and controls was constructed by incorporating the wGRS and clinical factors. C statistics method was applied to evaluate the capability of the model to discriminate gout patients from controls. RESULTS: Seven polymorphisms were shown to be associated with gout. The mean wGRS was significantly higher in patients with gout (15.2 ± 2.01) compared to controls (13.4 ± 2.10; p < 0.0001). The C statistic for the model using genetic information alone was 0.72, while the C statistic was 0.81 for the full model that incorporated all genetic and clinical factors. CONCLUSION: Accumulation of multiple genetic factors is associated with the development of gout. A prediction model for gout that incorporates genetic and clinical factors may be useful for identifying individuals who are at risk of gout.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".