MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3015975658 · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2020.04.004

A genome-wide association study of polycystic ovary syndrome identified from electronic health records

2020· article· en· W3015975658 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yanfei Zhang, Kevin Ho, Jacob M. Keaton, Dustin N. Hartzel, Felix R. Day, Anne E. Justice, Navya Shilpa Josyula, Sarah A. Pendergrass, Ky’Era V. Actkins, Lea K. Davis, Digna R. Velez Edwards, Brody Holohan, Andrea H. Ramirez, Ian B. Stanaway, David R. Crosslin, Gail P. Jarvik, Patrick Sleiman, Håkon Håkonarson, Marc S. Williams, Ming Ta Michael Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Infection and ImmunityMedical Research CouncilNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPolycystic ovaryGenome-wide association studyMedicineGenetic associationBiobankPopulationGeneticsGynecologyBioinformaticsInternal medicineBiologySingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common endocrine disorder affecting women of reproductive age. Previous studies have identified genetic variants associated with PCOS identified by different diagnostic criteria. The Rotterdam Criteria is the broadest and able to identify the most PCOS cases. Objectives To identify novel associated genetic variants, we extracted PCOS cases and controls from the electronic health records (EHR) based on the Rotterdam Criteria and performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS). Study Design We developed a PCOS phenotyping algorithm based on the Rotterdam criteria and applied it to three EHR-linked biobanks to identify cases and controls for genetic study. In discovery phase, we performed individual GWAS using the Geisinger’s MyCode and the eMERGE cohorts, which were then meta-analyzed. We attempted validation of the significantly association loci (P<1×10 −6 ) in the BioVU cohort. All association analyses used logistic regression, assuming an additive genetic model, and adjusted for principal components to control for population stratification. An inverse-variance fixed effect model was adopted for meta-analyses. Additionally, we examined the top variants to evaluate their associations with each criterion in the phenotyping algorithm. We used STRING to identify protein-protein interaction network. Results We identified 2,995 PCOS cases and 53,599 controls in total (2,742cases and 51,438 controls from the discovery phase; 253 cases and 2,161 controls in the validation phase). GWAS identified one novel genome-wide significant variant rs17186366 (OR=1.37 [1.23,1.54], P=2.8×10 −8 ) located near SOD2 . Additionally, two loci with suggestive association were also identified: rs113168128 (OR=1.72 [1.42,2.10], P=5.2 x10 −8 ), an intronic variant of ERBB4 that is independent from the previously published variants, and rs144248326 (OR=2.13 [1.52,2.86], P=8.45×10 −7 ), a novel intronic variant in WWTR1 . In the further association tests of the top 3 SNPs with each criterion in the PCOS algorithm, we found that rs17186366 was associated with polycystic and hyperandrogenism, while rs11316812 and rs144248326 were mainly associated with oligomenorrhea or infertility. Besides ERBB4, we also validated the association with DENND1A1 . Conclusion Through a discovery-validation GWAS on PCOS cases and controls identified from EHR using an algorithm based on Rotterdam criteria, we identified and validated a novel association with variants within ERBB4 . We also identified novel associations nearby SOD2 and WWTR1 . These results suggest the eGFR and Hippo pathways in the disease etiology. With previously identified PCOS-associated loci YAP1 , the ERBB4-YAP1-WWTR1 network implicates the epidermal growth factor receptor and the Hippo pathway in the multifactorial etiology of PCOS.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations103
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology→Same topicOvarian function and disorders→French-language works237,207→