MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795421652 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1719089115

FAM210A is a novel determinant of bone and muscle structure and strength

2018· article· en· W2795421652 on OpenAlexafffund
Ken-ichiro Tanaka, Yingben Xue, Loan Nguyen‐Yamamoto, John Morris, Ippei Kanazawa, Toshitsugu Sugimoto, Simon S. Wing, J. Brent Richards, David Goltzman

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
FundersMerck Sharp and DohmeCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University Health CentreUehara Memorial FoundationGovernment of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsSarcopeniaOsteoporosisLean body massBone mineralMuscle strengthMitochondrionBone massBioinformaticsBiologyMedicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyCell biologyBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance Osteoporosis and sarcopenia are common and costly comorbid diseases of aging, and there is an urgent need to prevent and treat both to reduce morbidity and mortality. We found that, in humans, genetic variation near FAM210A , a gene of previously unknown function, was strongly associated with both appendicular and whole body lean mass, as well as bone mineral density. In mice, Fam210a was expressed in muscle mitochondria and cytoplasm but not in bone. Nevertheless, in genetically modified mouse models, Fam210a strongly influenced the structure and strength of both muscle and bone. These studies therefore disclose a novel pathway whose further study may lead to the development of new treatments for both osteoporosis and sarcopenia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations54
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207