MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2435906918 · doi:10.1038/srep17267

Quantifying the heritability of glioma using genome-wide complex trait analysis

2015· article· en· W2435906918 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Kinnersley, Jonathan S. Mitchell, Konstantinos Gousias, Johannes Schramm, Ahmed Idbaïh, Marianne Labussière, Yannick Marie, Amithys Rahimian, H-Erich Wichmann, Stefan Schreiber, Khê Hoang‐Xuan, Jean‐Yves Delattre, Markus M. Nöthen, Karima Mokhtari, Mark Lathrop, Melissa L. Bondy, Matthias Simon, Marc Sanson, Richard S. Houlston

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFerroptosis and cancer prognosis
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill Genome Centre
FundersNational Cancer InstituteUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterCancer Research UKWellcome Trust
KeywordsHeritabilityGenome-wide association studySingle-nucleotide polymorphismMissing heritability problemGenetic associationBiologyGliomaGeneticsTraitQuantitative trait locusBioinformaticsGenotypeGeneComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have successfully identified a number of common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) influencing glioma risk. While these SNPs only explain a small proportion of the genetic risk it is unclear how much is left to be detected by other, yet to be identified, common SNPs. Therefore, we applied Genome-Wide Complex Trait Analysis (GCTA) to three GWAS datasets totalling 3,373 cases and 4,571 controls and performed a meta-analysis to estimate the heritability of glioma. Our results identify heritability estimates of 25% (95% CI: 20-31%, P = 1.15 × 10(-17)) for all forms of glioma - 26% (95% CI: 17-35%, P = 1.05 × 10(-8)) for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and 25% (95% CI: 17-32%, P = 1.26 × 10(-10)) for non-GBM tumors. This is a substantial increase from the genetic variance identified by the currently identified GWAS risk loci (~6% of common heritability), indicating that most of the heritable risk attributable to common genetic variants remains to be identified.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations43
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicFerroptosis and cancer prognosisFrench-language works237,207