Identifying genetic variants associated with ritodrine-induced pulmonary edema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ritodrine is one of the most commonly used tocolytics in preterm labor, acting as a ß2-adrenergic agonist that reduces intracellular calcium levels and prevents myometrial activation. Ritodrine infusion can result in serious maternal complications, and pulmonary edema is a particular concern among these. The cause of pulmonary edema following ritodrine treatment is multifactorial; however, the contributing genetic factors remain poorly understood. This study investigates the genetic variants associated with ritodrine-induced pulmonary edema. METHODS: In this case-control study, 16 patients who developed pulmonary edema during ritodrine infusion [case], and 16 pregnant women who were treated with ritodrine and did not develop pulmonary edema [control] were included. The control pregnant women were selected after matching for plurality and gestational age at the time of tocolytic use. Maternal blood was collected during admission for tocolytic treatment, and whole exome sequencing was performed with the stored blood samples. RESULTS: Gene-wise variant burden (GVB) analysis resulted in a total of 71 candidate genes by comparing the cumulative effects of multiple coding variants for 19729 protein-coding genes between the patients with pulmonary edema and the matched controls. Subsequent data analysis selected only the statistically significant and deleterious variants compatible with ritodrine-induced pulmonary edema. Two final candidate variants in CPT2 and ADRA1A were confirmed by Sanger sequencing. CONCLUSIONS: We identified new potential variants in genes that play a role in cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP)/protein kinase A (PKA) regulation, which supports their putative involvement in the predisposition to ritodrine-induced pulmonary edema in pregnant women.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".