Nonsyndromic cleft palate: An association study at GWAS candidate loci in a multiethnic sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Nonsyndromic cleft palate only (nsCPO) is a common and multifactorial form of orofacial clefting. In contrast to successes achieved for the other common form of orofacial clefting, that is, nonsyndromic cleft lip with/without cleft palate (nsCL/P), genome wide association studies (GWAS) of nsCPO have identified only one genome wide significant locus. Aim of the present study was to investigate whether common variants contribute to nsCPO and, if so, to identify novel risk loci. Methods We genotyped 33 SNPs at 27 candidate loci from 2 previously published nsCPO GWAS in an independent multiethnic sample. It included: (i) a family‐based sample of European ancestry (n = 212); and (ii) two case/control samples of Central European (n = 94/339) and Arabian ancestry (n = 38/231), respectively. A separate association analysis was performed for each genotyped dataset, and meta‐analyses were performed. Results After association analysis and meta‐analyses, none of the 33 SNPs showed genome‐wide significance. Two variants showed nominally significant association in the imputed GWAS dataset and exhibited a further decrease in p‐value in a European and an overall meta‐analysis including imputed GWAS data, respectively (rs395572: PMetaEU = 3.16 × 10−4; rs6809420: PMetaAll = 2.80 × 10−4). Conclusion Our findings suggest that there is a limited contribution of common variants to nsCPO. However, the individual effect sizes might be too small for detection of further associations in the present sample sizes. Rare variants may play a more substantial role in nsCPO than in nsCL/P, for which GWAS of smaller sample sizes have identified genome‐wide significant loci. Whole‐exome/genome sequencing studies of nsCPO are now warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".