White blood cells and chronic rhinosinusitis: a Mendelian randomization study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risk factors for the pathogenesis of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) remain largely undetermined, which is likely due to the heterogeneity of the disease. White blood cell counts have been largely unexplored as a risk factor for CRS even though different types of white blood cells are involved in the inflammatory process of CRS. OBJECTIVE: To investigate causal associations between different types of white blood cells on risk of CRS utilizing a Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis. METHODS: A two-sample MR analysis was performed using respective GWAS summary statistics for the exposure traits (neutrophil count, eosinophil count, basophil count, lymphocyte count, and monocyte count) and outcome trait (CRS). For the exposure traits, the European Bioinformatics Institute database of complete GWAS summary data was used. For the outcome trait, summary statistics for CRS GWAS were obtained from FinnGen. Primary analysis for MR was performed using inverse-variance weighted two-sample MR. Sensitivity analyses included weighted median, MR-Egger, and MR-PRESSO (raw and outlier-corrected). RESULTS: Eosinophils were associated with CRS (OR = 1.55 [95% CI 1.38, 1.73]; p = 4.3E-14). Eosinophil results were similar across additional MR methods. MR results did not demonstrate significant causal relationships between neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, or basophils with CRS. No significant pleiotropic bias was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In a two-sample MR analysis, a potential causal link between blood eosinophil counts and CRS has been demonstrated. In addition, causal relationships between blood counts among other white blood cell types and CRS were not found. Further studies involving genetic variation in CRS are needed to corroborate genetic causal effects for CRS.
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 | 0.032 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".