Complex Genetics of Type 2 Diabetes and Effect Size: What have We Learned from Isolated Populations?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic studies in large outbred populations have documented a complex, highly polygenic basis for type 2 diabetes (T2D). Most of the variants currently known to be associated with T2D risk have been identified in large studies that included tens of thousands of individuals who are representative of a single major ethnic group such as European, Asian, or African. However, most of these variants have only modest effects on the risk for T2D; identification of definitive 'causal variant' or 'causative loci' is typically lacking. Studies in isolated populations offer several advantages over outbred populations despite being, on average, much smaller in sample size. For example, reduced genetic variability, enrichment of rare variants, and a more uniform environment and lifestyle, which are hallmarks of isolated populations, can reduce the complexity of identifying disease-associated genes. To date, studies in isolated populations have provided valuable insight into the genetic basis of T2D by providing both a deeper understanding of previously identified T2D-associated variants (e.g. demonstrating that variants in KCNQ1 have a strong parent-of-origin effect) or providing novel variants (e.g. ABCC8 in Pima Indians, TBC1D4 in the Greenlandic population, HNF1A in Canadian Oji-Cree). This review summarizes advancements in genetic studies of T2D in outbred and isolated populations, and provides information on whether the difference in the prevalence of T2D in different populations (Pima Indians vs. non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Whites vs. non-Hispanic Blacks) can be explained by the difference in risk allele frequencies of established T2D variants.
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 | 0.024 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".