Established and emerging strategies to crack the genetic code of obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tremendous progress has been made in the genetic elucidation of obesity over the past two decades, driven largely by technological, methodological and organizational innovations. Current strategies for identifying obesity-predisposing loci/genes, including cytogenetics, linkage analysis, homozygosity mapping, admixture mapping, candidate gene studies, genome-wide association studies, custom genotyping arrays, whole-exome sequencing and targeted exome sequencing, have achieved differing levels of success, and the identified loci in aggregate explain only a modest fraction of the estimated heritability of obesity. This review outlines the successes and limitations of these approaches and proposes novel strategies, including the use of exceptionally large sample sizes, the study of diverse ethnic groups and deep phenotypes and the application of innovative methods and study designs, to identify the remaining obesity-predisposing genes. The use of both established and emerging strategies has the potential to crack the genetic code of obesity in the not-too-distant future. The resulting knowledge is likely to yield improvements in obesity prediction, prevention and care.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".