MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6976958759 · doi:10.60692/ykh1h-94e71

The effect of smoking on multiple sclerosis: a mendelian randomization study

2020· article· en· W6976958759 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSilicon and Solar Cell Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMendelian randomizationOdds ratioMultiple sclerosisObservational studyConfidence intervalMendelian inheritanceCausality (physics)Genetic associationAssociation (psychology)Cigarette smoking

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The causes of multiple sclerosis (MS) remain unknown. Smoking has been associated with MS in observational studies and is often thought of as an environmental risk factor. We used two-sample Mendelian Randomization (MR) to examined whether this association is causal using genetic variants identified in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) as associated with smoking. We assessed both smoking initiation and lifetime smoking behaviour (which captures smoking duration, heaviness and cessation). There was very limited evidence for a meaningful effect of smoking on MS susceptibility was measured using summary statistics from the International Multiple Sclerosis Genetics Consortium (IMSGC) meta-analysis, including 14,802 cases and 26,703 controls. There was no clear evidence for an effect of smoking on the risk of developing MS (smoking initiation: odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.61; lifetime smoking: OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87-1.40). These findings suggest that smoking does not have a detrimental consequence on MS susceptibility. Further work is needed to determine the causal effect of smoking on MS progression.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.153 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicSilicon and Solar Cell TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207