Replication study of susceptibility variants associated with allergic rhinitis and allergy in Han Chinese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Allergic rhinitis (AR) is believed to be a complex genetic disease. The last decade has been marked by the publication of more than 20 genome-wide association studies (GWASs) of AR and associated allergic phenotypes and allergic diseases, which have shown allergic diseases and traits to share a large number of genetic susceptibility loci. The aim of present study was therefore to investigate the highly replicated allergy related genes and variants as candidates for AR in Han Chinese subjects. Methods A total of 762 AR patients and 760 control subjects were recruited, and a total of 58 susceptible variants previously reported to be associated with allergic traits were choose for replication. Results Logistic regression analyses revealed that in the co-dominant-effect model as assessed by the AIC, compared with wild-type carriers, significant AR risk were associated with rs9865818 in LPP (P = 0.029, OR = 1.469 for GG vs. AA); rs6554809 in DNAH5 (P = 0.000, OR = 1.597 for TC vs. CC); rs1438673 in WDR36-CAMK4 loci (P = 0.037, OR = 1.396 for CC vs.TT), rs7775228 in HLA region (P = 0.000, OR = 1.589 for TC vs.TT), rs7203459 in CLEC16A (P = 0.025, OR = 0.731 for TC vs. TT). Conclusion We replicated Han Chinese AR-specific susceptibility loci in LPP, DNAH5, HLA, CLEC16A and WDR36-CAMK4. Further understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying these associations may provide new insights into the etiology of allergic disease.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".