A genome-wide association study of methamphetamine use among people with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Amphetamine-like stimulants are the most used psychostimulants in the world; methamphetamine use is the most prevalent in people with HIV. Prolonged methamphetamine use can cause lasting damage to the heart, gut, and brain, as well as auditory hallucinations and paranoid thinking. However, relatively little is known about methamphetamine use and its genetic contributors. METHODS: Using genetic information from the Centers for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems (CNICS) cohort, we conducted a multi-ancestry genome-wide association study (GWAS) of methamphetamine use among people with HIV (n = 1,196 reported ever use, n = 4,750 reported never use). RESULTS: ) in our study. Further, we did not replicate previously suggested genetic variants from other studies (all p > 0.05 in our analysis). DISCUSSION: Our study suggests that there is no single strong genetic contributor to lifetime use of methamphetamine in people with HIV enrolled in CNICS. Larger studies with more refined outcome assessment are warranted to further understand the contribution of genetics to methamphetamine use and use disorder. Investigation into social and environmental contributors to methamphetamine use are similarly necessary.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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".