MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412529313 · doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000004594

Genome- and Exome-Wide Identification of Common-to-Rare Variants Associated with Middle Ear Cholesteatoma

2025· article· en· W4412529313 on OpenAlexaff
Ke Qiu, Junhong Li, Ping An, Lin Lou, Tingyue Gu, Xiuli Shao, Min Chen, Minzi Mao, Wendu Pang, Yongbo Zheng, Di Deng, Wei Xu, Jianjun Ren, Yu Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueOtology & Neurotology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCholesteatomaExome sequencingExomeIdentification (biology)Middle earGenomeGeneticsComputational biologyMutationAnatomyGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HYPOTHESIS: To investigate the genetic susceptibility of middle ear cholesteatoma (MEC) and construct an MEC risk prediction model by integrating genetic risk with clinical factors. BACKGROUND: MEC represents a relatively rare disorder that is associated with high morbidity, whereas its genetic etiology remains poorly understood. METHODS: Using genetic data from the UK Biobank (UKB), we performed both genome-wide association study (GWAS) and exome-wide association study (ExWAS) involving 702 MEC patients and 491,503 controls. Gene-based and gene set-based association studies were then performed to identify risk genes and gene sets of MEC, respectively. In addition, logistic regression models were applied to identify clinically significant MEC-associated diseases, of which the genetic and causal relationships with MEC were further characterized using linkage disequilibrium score regression, genetic analysis incorporating pleiotropy and annotation, and Mendelian randomization. Moreover, logistic regression models were employed to construct MEC risk prediction models by integrating genetic risk with clinical factors. RESULTS: Our study identified 159 common variants across 8 genomic loci and 39 rare variants spanning 17 genomic regions that were significantly associated with MEC, with PLD1 being prioritized as the top-ranked MEC candidate target gene. Additionally, 10 different types of diseases showed significant associations with MEC, but no inconclusive genetic or causal relationship was established between them. Moreover, we successfully constructed a high-performance MEC risk prediction model with an area under the curve of 0.704, showing the potential for clinical application. CONCLUSIONS: These findings advance our understanding of the genetic susceptibility of MEC and provide insights into its risk prediction, thus contributing to improved MEC prevention and management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.255
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtology & NeurotologySame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207