MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379741083 · doi:10.1002/jbm4.10776

Osteoclast <scp>microRNA</scp> Profiling in Rheumatoid Arthritis to Capture the Erosive Factor

2023· article· en· W4379741083 on OpenAlexafffund
Nguyen Hoang Dong, L. Keenan Audrey, Mbous Nguimbus Leopold, Allard‐Chamard Hugues, Luigi Bouchard, Boire Gilles, Michelle S. Scott, Sophie Roux

Bibliographic record

VenueJBMR Plus · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPfizer CanadaPfizer
KeywordsOsteoclastRheumatoid arthritisPeripheral blood mononuclear cellMedicinemicroRNAImmunologyInternal medicineBiologyGeneIn vitroGeneticsReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), only a subset of patients develop irreversible bone destruction. Our aim was to identify a microRNA (miR)‐based osteoclast‐related signature predictive of erosiveness in RA. Seventy‐six adults with erosive (E) or nonerosive (NE) seropositive RA and 43 sex‐ and age‐matched healthy controls were recruited. Twenty‐five miRs from peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC)‐derived osteoclasts selected from RNA‐Seq (discovery cohort) were assessed by qPCR (replication cohort), as were 33 target genes (direct targets or associated with regulated pathways). The top five miRs found differentially expressed in RA osteoclasts were either decreased (hsa‐miR‐34a‐3p, 365b‐3p, 374a‐3p, and 511‐3p [E versus NE]) or increased (hsa‐miR‐193b‐3p [E versus controls]). In vitro, inhibition of miR‐34a‐3p had an impact on osteoclast bone resorption. An integrative network analysis of miRs and their targets highlighted correlations between mRNA and miR expression, both negative ( CD38 , CD80 , SIRT1 ) and positive ( MITF ), and differential gene expression between NE versus E ( GXYLT1, MITF ) or versus controls ( CD38, KLF4 ). Machine‐learning models were used to evaluate the value of miRs and target genes, in combination with clinical data, to predict erosion. One model, including a set of miRs (predominantly 365b‐3p) combined with rheumatoid factor titer, provided 70% accuracy (area under the curve [AUC] 0.66). Adding genes directly targeted or belonging to related pathways improved the predictive power of the model for the erosive phenotype (78% accuracy, AUC 0.85). This proof‐of‐concept study indicates that identification of RA subjects at risk of erosions may be improved by studying miR expression in PBMC‐derived osteoclasts, suggesting novel approaches toward personalized treatment. © 2023 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBMR PlusSame topicCancer-related molecular mechanisms researchFrench-language works237,207