No evidence that genetic predictors of susceptibility predict changes in core outcomes in JIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The clinical progression of JIA is unpredictable. Knowing who will develop severe disease could facilitate rapid intensification of therapies. We use genetic variants conferring susceptibility to JIA to predict disease outcome measures. METHODS: A total of 713 JIA patients with genotype data and core outcome variables (COVs) at diagnosis (baseline) and 1 year follow-up were identified from the Childhood Arthritis Prospective Study (CAPS). A weighted genetic risk score (GRS) was generated, including all single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) previously associated with JIA susceptibility (P-value < 5×10-08). We used multivariable linear regression to test the GRS for association with COVS (limited joint count, active joint count, physician global assessment, parent/patient general evaluation, childhood HAQ and ESR) at baseline and change in COVS from baseline to 1 year, adjusting for baseline COV and International League of Associations of Rheumatology (ILAR) category. The GRS was split into quintiles to identify high (quintile 5) and low (quintile 1) risk groups. RESULTS: Patients in the high-risk group for the GRS had a younger age at presentation (median low risk 7.79, median high risk 3.51). No association was observed between the GRS and any outcome measures at 1 year follow-up or baseline. CONCLUSION: For the first time we have used all known JIA genetic susceptibility loci (P=<5×10-08) in a GRS to predict changes in disease outcome measured over time. Genetic susceptibility variants are poor predictors of changes in core outcome measures, it is likely that genetic factors predicting disease outcome are independent to those predicting susceptibility. The next step will be to conduct a genome-wide association analysis of JIA outcome.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".