MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303983384 · doi:10.1111/age.13267

Heritability of insidious uveitis in Appaloosa horses

2022· article· en· W4303983384 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole B. Kingsley, Lynne S Sandmeyer, Elaine M. Norton, Doug Speed, Ann E. Dwyer, Mary E. Lassaline, Molly E. McCue, Rebecca R. Bellone

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Genetics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMycobacterium research and diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUC Davis Center for Equine HealthMorris Animal Foundation
KeywordsHeritabilityGenotypingBiologyLinkage disequilibriumRestricted maximum likelihoodBreedGenotypeGenetic correlationUveitisGeneticsVeterinary medicineGenetic variationHaplotypeMedicineImmunologyMaximum likelihoodStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Equine recurrent uveitis (ERU) is a blinding ocular disorder among horses, and the Appaloosa horse breed is disproportionally affected by a chronic form of this intraocular inflammatory disease known as insidious uveitis. Strong breed predisposition and previous investigations suggest that there is a genetic component to the pathology of insidious uveitis among Appaloosa horses; however, no estimates of the heritability of the disease have previously been determined. This study aimed to characterize the genetic underpinning of the disease by estimating the heritability for insidious uveitis among Appaloosas. After combining two genotyping array datasets from the Illumina Equine SNP70 BeadChip and the Axiom Equine 670 K Genotyping Array, heritability was estimated for 59 affected and 83 unaffected horses using both restricted maximum likelihood (REML) and phenotype correlation – genotype correlation solvers from the linkage disequilibrium adjusted kinship software. Based on previous research, age and sex were used as covariates, and the locus responsible for the characteristic Appaloosa coat pattern (LP), previously associated with ERU risk, was included as a fixed effect (‘top predictor’). Using prevalence values from 0.05 to 0.42, the heritability estimate for insidious uveitis ranged from 0.95 (SE = 0.14) to 1.74 (SE = 0.25) with LP contributing 0.16–0.33 to the estimate. This study suggests that insidious uveitis is highly heritable (REML 95% CI, h 2 = 0.68–1.0) and additional loci outside of LP are contributing to the genetic risk for insidious uveitis for Appaloosas. Once identified, these other genetic factors may lead to new disease mitigation efforts in veterinary care and breeding practices.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal GeneticsSame topicMycobacterium research and diagnosisFrench-language works237,207