Asthma exacerbations and eosinophilia in the UK Biobank: a genome-wide association study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Asthma exacerbations reflect disease severity, affect morbidity and mortality, and may lead to declining lung function. Inflammatory endotypes ( e.g. T2-high (eosinophilic)) may play a key role in asthma exacerbations. We aimed to assess whether genetic susceptibility underlies asthma exacerbation risk and additionally tested for an interaction between genetic variants and eosinophilia on exacerbation risk. Methods UK Biobank data were used to perform a genome-wide association study of individuals with asthma and at least one exacerbation compared to individuals with asthma and no history of exacerbations. Individuals with asthma were identified using self-reported data, hospitalisation data and general practitioner records. Exacerbations were identified as either asthma-related hospitalisation, general practitioner record of asthma exacerbation or an oral corticosteroid burst prescription. A logistic regression model adjusted for age, sex, smoking status and genetic ancestry via principal components was used to assess the association between genetic variants and asthma exacerbations. We sought replication for suggestive associations (p<5×10 −6 ) in the GERA cohort. Results In the UK Biobank, we identified 11 604 cases and 37 890 controls. While no variants reached genome-wide significance (p<5×10 −8 ) in the primary analysis, 116 signals were suggestively significant (p<5×10 −6 ). In GERA, two single nucleotide polymorphisms (rs34643691 and rs149721630) replicated (p<0.05), representing signals near the NTRK3 and ABCA13 genes. Conclusions Our study has identified reproducible associations with asthma exacerbations in the UK Biobank and GERA cohorts. Confirmation of these findings in different asthma subphenotypes in diverse ancestries and functional investigation will be required to understand their mechanisms of action and potentially inform therapeutic development.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".