Aggrecan Variable Number of Tandem Repeat Polymorphism and Lumbar Disc Degeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Data on the association between the ACAN (encoded for aggrecan core protein) variable number of tandem repeat (VNTR) polymorphism and lumbar disc degeneration are conflicting, so we performed a meta-analysis. Objective. Aggrecan is involved in the shock absorbing function of the lumbar disc; we performed a meta-analysis to assess the association between ACAN VNTR and lumbar degeneration. Summary of Background Data. To perform a meta-analysis, we searched for studies published until September 2012, using electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure). Eight studies involving 965 cases of lumbar disc degeneration and 982 control subjects were identified. Methods. Assessment for eligibility and extraction of data were performed by 2 independent investigators. We extracted allele frequency for each study. We calculated the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to assess the strength of the association between the ACAN VNTR polymorphism and lumbar disc degeneration risk. Results. Results from the allele model suggested an increased risk of lumbar disc degeneration for the shorter alleles carriers compared with the normal alleles and longer alleles (OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.04–2.30, P = 0.03). In subgroup analysis by ethnicity, significant increased risks were found among Asians with shorter alleles (OR=1.65, 95% CI: 1.17–2.33, P = 0.004). Conclusion. Our results suggest an increased risk of shorter alleles compared with normal alleles and longer alleles against lumbar disc degeneration among populations especially among Asian descent. Such association may not be statistically significant in European populations. Level of Evidence: N/A A meta-analysis was performed to investigate the association between aggrecan variable number of tandem repeat and lumbar disc degeneration. Eight studies were identified. Our result suggested an increased risk of shorter alleles compared with normal alleles and longer alleles against lumbar disc degeneration among populations, especially among populations of Asian descent.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".