MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782610741 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1718059115

<i>CFH</i> and <i>ARMS2</i> genetic risk determines progression to neovascular age-related macular degeneration after antioxidant and zinc supplementation

2018· article· en· W2782610741 on OpenAlexaff
Demetrios G. Vavvas, Kent W. Small, Carl C. Awh, Brent W. Zanke, Robert Tibshirani, Rafal Kustra

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacular degenerationFactor HMedicineAntioxidantDiseaseOncologyBioinformaticsInternal medicineOphthalmologyBiologyImmunologyComplement system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of severe vision loss in the elderly and has major economic and quality-of-life impact. Prophylactic high-dose zinc and antioxidant supplements treatments are typically recommended with the assumption of homogeneously distributed benefit and risk of developing neovascular AMD. We show that individual variation at complement factor H and age-related maculopathy susceptibility 2 , genes which predispose to AMD, also determines the effectiveness of nutritional prophylaxis. Some individuals paradoxically experience worsening disease with treatment, while others experience greater than average benefit. These divergent responses are difficult to identify when treatment effects have long latency. Understanding individual variations in prophylactic treatment response should inform future research and optimize health outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations62
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207