Genome‐Wide Interactions with Dairy Intake for Body Mass Index in Adults of European Descent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scope Body weight responds variably to the intake of dairy foods. Genetic variation may contribute to inter‐individual variability in associations between body weight and dairy consumption. Methods and results A genome‐wide interaction study to discover genetic variants that account for variation in BMI in the context of low‐fat, high‐fat and total dairy intake in cross‐sectional analysis was conducted. Data from nine discovery studies (up to 25 513 European descent individuals) were meta‐analyzed. Twenty‐six genetic variants reached the selected significance threshold (p‐interaction <10−7), and six independent variants (LINC01512‐rs7751666, PALM2/AKAP2‐rs914359, ACTA2‐rs1388, PPP1R12A‐rs7961195, LINC00333‐rs9635058, AC098847.1‐rs1791355) were evaluated meta‐analytically for replication of interaction in up to 17 675 individuals. Variant rs9635058 (128 kb 3’ of LINC00333) was replicated (p‐interaction = 0.004). In the discovery cohorts, rs9635058 interacted with dairy (p‐interaction = 7.36 × 10−8) such that each serving of low‐fat dairy was associated with 0.225 kg m−2 lower BMI per each additional copy of the effect allele (A). A second genetic variant (ACTA2‐rs1388) approached interaction replication significance for low‐fat dairy exposure. Conclusion Body weight responses to dairy intake may be modified by genotype, in that greater dairy intake may protect a genetic subgroup from higher body weight.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".