Characterization of Large Copy Number Variation in Mexican Type 2 Diabetes subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of Copy Number Variants (CNVs) on Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) remains little explored. The present study characterized large rare CNVs in 686 T2D and 194 non-T2D subjects of Mexican ancestry genotyped using the Affymetrix Genome-Wide Human SNP array 5.0. Rare CNVs with ≥ 100 kb length were identified using a stringent strategy based on merging CNVs calls generated using Birdsuit, iPattern and PennCNV algorithms. We applied three different strategies to evaluate the distribution of CNVs in the T2D and non-T2D samples: 1) Burden analysis, 2) Identification of CNVs in loci previously associated to T2D, and 3) Identification of CNVs observed only in the T2D group. In the CNV burden analysis, the T2D group showed a higher proportion of CNVs, and also a higher proportion of CNVs overlapping at least one gene than the non T2D group. Five of the six loci previously associated with T2D had duplications or deletions in the T2D sample, but not the non-T2D sample. A gene-set analysis including genes with CNVs observed only in the T2D group highlighted gene-sets related with sensory perception (olfactory receptors, OR) and phenylpyruvate tautomerase/dopachrome isomerase activity (MIF and DDT genes).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".