Genetic risk for dengue hemorrhagic fever and dengue fever in multiple ancestries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genetic risk factors for dengue hemorrhagic fever/dengue shock syndrome (DHF/DSS) and dengue fever (DF) are limited, in particular there are sparse data on genetic risk across diverse populations. METHODS: We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) in a derivation and validation sample of 7, 460 participants of Latin American, South Asian, and South East Asian ancestries. We then developed a weighted polygenic risk score (PRS) for each participant in each of the validation cohorts of the three ancestries to predict the risk of DHF/DSS compared to DF, DHF/DSS compared to controls, and, DF compared to controls. FINDINGS: The risk of DHF/DSS was significantly increased, odds ratio [OR] 1.84 (95%CI 1.47 to 2.31) (195 SNPs), compared to DF, fourth PRS quartile versus first quartile, in the validation cohort. The risk of DHF/DSS compared to controls was increased (OR=3.94; 95% CI 2.84 to 5.45) (278 SNPs), as was the risk of DF compared to controls (OR=1.97; 95%CI 1.63 to 2.39) (251 SNPs). Risk increased in a dose-dependent manner with increase in quartiles of PRS across comparisons. Significant associations persisted for PRS built within ancestries and applied to the same or different ancestries as well as for PRS built for one outcome (DHF/DSS or DF) and applied to the other. INTERPRETATION: There is a strong genetic effect that predisposes to risk of DHF/DSS and DF. The genetic risk for DHF/DSS is higher than that for DF when compared to controls, and this effect persists across multiple ancestries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".