Effect of Polymorphisms in the FCN1, FCN2, and FCN3 Genes on the Susceptibility to Develop Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic association studies in rheumatoid arthritis conducted in various populations have yielded heterogeneous results. The present systematic review was conducted to synthesize the results of the studies in order to establish the impact of polymorphisms in the ficolin-coding genes FCN1, FCN2, and FCN3 on the susceptibility to develop rheumatoid arthritis. A systematic literature review was performed using the following keywords “gene (FCN1/FCN2/FCN3)”, “Polymorphism/Genetic Variant”, and “rheumatoid arthritis” in different databases until January 2022. Authors assessed articles by title/abstract and then assessed by full text for data extraction. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data synthesis was performed qualitatively and quantitatively. A total of 1519 articles were eligible for inclusion in this review, 3 were identified as relevant for the quantitative synthesis with 670 patients and 1019 controls. For the FCN1 gene, an association was found in the dominant and recessive genetic models of the variants rs2989727 (genotype TT = OR: 0.577, 95% CI: 0.430-0.769) and rs1071583 (genotype GG = OR: 1.537, 95% CI: 1.153-2.049, <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>p</a:mi> <a:mo>=</a:mo> <a:mn>0.0032</a:mn> </a:math> ) with the development of rheumatoid arthritis as a protective or susceptibility factor. FCN2 and FCN3 genes did not show association with disease development. The FCN1 gene variants rs2989727 and rs1071583 are associated with the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis in populations from Brazil and Belgium, but not in FCN2 and FCN3 gene variants.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".