Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Rare large-effect genetic variants underlie monogenic dyslipidemias, whereas common small-effect genetic variants - single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) - have modest influences on lipid traits. Over the past decade, these small-effect SNPs have been shown to cumulatively exert consistent effects on lipid phenotypes under a polygenic framework, which is the focus of this review. RECENT FINDINGS: Several groups have reported polygenic risk scores assembled from lipid-associated SNPs, and have applied them to their respective phenotypes. For lipid traits in the normal population distribution, polygenic effects quantified by a score that integrates several common polymorphisms account for about 20-30% of genetic variation. Among individuals at the extremes of the distribution, that is, those with clinical dyslipidemia, the polygenic component includes both rare variants with large effects and common polymorphisms: depending on the trait, 20-50% of susceptibility can be accounted for by this assortment of genetic variants. SUMMARY: Accounting for polygenic effects increases the numbers of dyslipidemic individuals who can be explained genetically, but a substantial proportion of susceptibility remains unexplained. Whether documenting the polygenic basis of dyslipidemia will affect outcomes in clinical trials or prospective observational studies remains to be determined.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".