ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Contribution of dominant and recessive model effects to the genetic architecture of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
53 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rationale: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a rare, chronic, progressive lung disease with high mortality and few treatment options. Using an additive genetic model, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified multiple risk loci highlighting new genes and pathways of interest. Since IPF risk could also be influenced by non-additive effects, we hypothesised that association analyses using alternative genetic models may provide additional mechanistic insight. Objectives: To perform GWAS of IPF susceptibility to detect associations where the underlying effects are consistent with recessive or dominant genetic models. Methods: We performed GWAS of IPF susceptibility, with logistic regression assuming dominant or recessive genetic models, including 5,159 IPF cases, from clinically-curated sources, and 27,459 controls. We functionally annotated independent signals and performed variant-to-gene mapping, applying fine-mapping to define potentially causal variants and genes. We assessed differential expression levels of genes of interest in publicly available single cell RNAseq data and in primary cells derived from IPF donors and controls. Main Results: We identified five genome-wide significant signals, under a recessive model, that had not been reported previously. These included exonic variants in the cell-cycle gene Polyamine-Modulated Factor 1 ( Conclusions: Using alternative genetic models in IPF susceptibility GWAS identified new signals and genes, providing new insights into IPF pathogenesis and potential future therapies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.