MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2571463357 · doi:10.21037/atm.2016.11.09

Using epigenomic data to inform genome-wide association studies of bone mineral density

2016· letter· en· W2571463357 on OpenAlexaff
John Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Translational Medicine · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenome-wide association studyOsteoporosisBone mineralMedicineEpigenomicsGenetic associationIncidence (geometry)DiseaseInternal medicineEnvironmental healthBioinformaticsBiologyGeneticsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osteoporosis is primarily an aging-related disease, characterized by decreased bone strength and increased fracture risk. The incidence of osteoporosis is increasing worldwide due to aging populations and is a major healthcare burden. For instance, osteoporosis-related healthcare costed China $9.45 billion USD in 2010, will likely double by 2035, and increase to $25 billion USD by 2050 (1). Bone mineral density (BMD) is used to predict fracture risk and is the primary clinical measurement used to diagnose osteoporosis. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of BMD have successfully identified many genetic loci that influence osteoporosis (2-12), but like most GWAS, these studies used stringent statistical significance thresholds to limit false positive results at the expense of false negatives.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0090.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Translational MedicineSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207