MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210929754 · doi:10.3410/f.1031864.371963

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Variation in factor B (BF) and complement component 2 (C2) genes is associated with age-related macular degeneration.

2006· dataset· en· W4210929754 on OpenAlexfundno aff
John P. Atkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2006
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityMacula FoundationRetina Research FoundationResearch to Prevent BlindnessNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsHaplotypeMacular degenerationFactor HGeneticsOdds ratioAlleleGeneComplement factor BGenetic variationComplement component 3BiologyComplement factor IGenetic variantsMedicineComplement systemGenotypeAlternative complement pathwayInternal medicineAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the most common form of irreversible blindness in developed countries 1,2 .Variants in the factor H gene (CFH, also known as HF1), which encodes a major inhibitor of the alternative complement pathway, are associated with the risk for developing AMD [3][4][5][6][7][8] .Here we test the hypothesis that variation in genes encoding other regulatory proteins of the same pathway is associated with AMD.We screened factor B (BF) and complement component 2 (C2) genes, located in the major histo-compatibility complex class III region, for genetic variation in two independent cohorts comprising ~900 individuals with AMD and ~400 matched controls.Haplotype analyses identify a statistically significant common risk haplotype (H1) and two protective haplotypes.The L9H variant of BF and the E318D variant of C2 (H10), as well as a variant in intron 10 of C2 and the R32Q variant of BF (H7), confer a significantly reduced risk of AMD (odds ratio = 0.45 and 0.36, respectively).Combined analysis of the C2 and BF haplotypes and CFH variants shows that variation in the two loci can predict the clinical outcome in 74% of the affected individuals and 56% of the controls.These data expand and refine our understanding of the genetic risk for AMD.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3410.124

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.308 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature→Same topicRetinal Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→