BMP2 rs1005464 is associated with mandibular condyle size variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the association between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in endochondral development-related genes and mandibular condyle shape, size, volume, and symmetry traits. Cone-beam Computed Tomographies and genomic DNA from 118 individuals were evaluated (age range: 15-66 years). Data from twelve 3D landmarks on mandibular condyles were submitted to morphometric analyses including Procrustes fit, principal component analysis, and estimation of centroid sizes and fluctuating asymmetry scores. Condylar volumes were additionally measured. Seven SNPs across BMP2, BMP4, RUNX2 and SMAD6 were genotyped. Linear models were fit to evaluate the effect of the SNPs on the mandibular condyles' quantitative traits. Only the association between BMP2 rs1005464 and centroid size remained significant after adjusting to account for the false discovery rate due to multiple testing. Individuals carrying at least one A allele for this SNP showed larger condylar size than common homozygotes GG (β = 0.043; 95% CI: 0.014-0.071; P value = 0.028). The model including BMP2 rs1005464, age and sex of the participants explained 17% of the variation in condylar size. Shape, volume, and symmetry were not associated with the evaluated SNPs. These results suggest that BMP2 rs1005464 might be associated with variation in the mandibular condyles size.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".