MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396888894 · doi:10.1016/j.burns.2024.05.004

Genetic influence on scar vascularity after burn injury in individuals of European ancestry: A prospective cohort study

2024· article· en· W4396888894 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew Stevenson, Gemma Cadby, Hilary Wallace, Phillip E. Melton, Lisa Martin, Fiona M. Wood, Mark W. Fear

Bibliographic record

VenueBurns · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWound Management Innovation Cooperative Research CentreFiona Wood Foundation
KeywordsMedicineVascularitySingle-nucleotide polymorphismProspective cohort studyBurn injuryOncologyGenotypeInternal medicinePathologyGeneticsSurgeryGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After burn injury there is considerable variation in scar outcome, partially due to genetic factors. Scar vascularity is one characteristic that varies between individuals, and this study aimed to identify genetic variants contributing to different scar vascularity outcomes. An exome-wide array association study and gene pathway analysis was performed on a prospective cohort of 665 patients of European ancestry treated for burn injury, using their scar vascularity (SV) sub-score, part of the modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS), as an outcome measure. DNA was genotyped using the Infinium HumanCoreExome-24 BeadChip, imputed to the Haplotype Reference Consortium panel. Associations between genetic variants (single nucleotide polymorphisms) and SV were estimated using an additive genetic model adjusting for sex, age, % total body surface area and number of surgical procedures, utilising linear and multinomial logistic regression. No individual genetic variants achieved the cut-off threshold for significance. Gene sets were also analysed using the Functional Mapping and Annotation (FUMA) platform, in which biological processes indirectly related to angiogenesis were significantly represented. This study suggests that SNPs in genes associated with angiogenesis may influence SV, but further studies with larger datasets are essential to validate these findings. • 665 burn patients genotyped and imputed for an association study. • Associations made between gene variants and scar vascularity. • No individual genetic variants reached significance due to sample size. • Gene set analysis found 8 gene significant sets, some involved in angiogenesis. • Largest association study on burn cohort to date.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBurnsSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207