Analysis of admixed Greenlandic siblings shows that the mean genotypic values for metabolic phenotypes differ between Inuit and Europeans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disease prevalence and mean phenotype values differ between many populations, including Inuit and Europeans. Whether these differences are partly explained by genetic differences or solely due to differences in environmental exposures is still unknown, because estimates of the genetic contribution to these means, which we will here refer to as mean genotypic values, are easily confounded, and because studies across genetically diverse populations are lacking. METHODS: Leveraging the unique genetic properties of the small, admixed and historically isolated Greenlandic population, we estimated the differences in mean genotypic value between Inuit and European genetic ancestry using an admixed sibling design. Analyses were performed across 26 metabolic phenotypes, in 1474 admixed sibling pairs present in a cohort of 5996 Greenlanders. RESULTS: /%), fat percentage (-0.38 (0.13) %/%), waist circumference (-0.42 (0.16) cm/%), hip circumference (-0.38 (0.11) cm/%) and fasting serum insulin levels (-1.07 (0.51) pmol/l/%). The direction of the effects was consistent with the observed mean phenotype differences between Inuit and European genetic ancestry. No difference in mean genotypic value was observed for height, markers of glucose homeostasis, or circulating lipid levels. CONCLUSIONS: We show that mean genotypic values for some metabolic phenotypes differ between two human populations using a method not easily confounded by possible differences in environmental exposures. Our study illustrates the importance of performing genetic studies in diverse populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".