Transcriptomics and metabolomics: Challenges of studying obesity in osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Obesity is a leading risk factor for both the incidence and progression of osteoarthritis (OA). Omic technologies, including transcriptomics and metabolomics are capable of identifying RNA and metabolite profiles in tissues and biofluids of OA patients. The objective of this review is to highlight studies using transcriptomics and metabolomics that contribute to our understanding of OA pathology in relation to obesity. Design: We conducted a targeted search of PUBMED for articles, and GEO for datasets, published up to February 13, 2024, screening for those using high-throughput transcriptomic and metabolomic techniques to study human or pre-clinical animal model tissues or biofluids related to obesity-associated OA. We describe relevant studies and discuss challenges studying obesity as a disease-related factor in OA. Results: Of the 107 publications identified by our search criteria, only 15 specifically used transcriptomics or metabolomics to study joint tissues or biofluids in obesity-related OA. Specific transcriptomic and metabolomic signatures associated with obesity-related OA have been defined in select local joint tissues, biofluids and other biological material. However, considerable challenges exist in understanding contributions of obesity-associated modifications of transcriptomes and metabolomes related to OA, including sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary and molecular redundancy-related factors. Conclusions: A number of additional transcriptomic and metabolomic studies are needed to comprehensively understand how obesity affects OA incidence, progression and outcomes. Integration of transcriptome and metabolome signatures from multiple tissues and biofluids, using network-based approaches will likely help to better define putative therapeutic targets that could enable precision medicine approaches to obese OA patients.
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 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".