Why BGPT?
logo

Traceable Claims in Bioinformatics

See what computational analyses actually reported, with provenance for every claim.Know what the science actually supports before you trust the answer.

Press Enter ↵ to search claims



    Explore by Goal












     Quick Analysis Plan


    The HD CSF study reports a consistently reduced TNFRSF8 (sCD30) effect in both cohorts: discovery adjusted β = -1.11 NPX (p = 7.6×10⁻⁸) and validation β = -2.19 unadjusted / -2.06 age-sex adjusted (p < 0.001), with the validation effect roughly twice as large — indicating same-direction replication but possible cohort-scale heterogeneity requiring formal meta-analytic harmonization .


     Long Analysis Plan


    Cross-Cohort Effect Sizes: Reported Values

    The study reports TNFRSF8 reduction in HDGECs vs controls in both cohorts. Discovery (Uppsala, n=36 HDGECs/40 controls): adjusted β = -1.11 NPX, p = 7.6×10⁻⁸ (survived multiple-testing correction at p=0.00024). Validation (Stockholm/Gothenburg, n=19 HDGECs/14 controls): β = -2.19 (CI -2.78 to -1.59) unadjusted; β = -2.06 (CI -2.75 to -1.30), p < 0.001 after age/sex adjustment. Site differences between validation centers were statistically corrected .

    Caveat: the ~2-fold larger validation β is BGPT inference, not an author claim; the validation cohort is smaller (33 vs 76 participants), and a discovery cohort including premanifest carriers (20/42) could dilute its mean effect if TNFRSF8 decline is stage-dependent .

    Analysis Plan

    • Harmonize: load NPX values for both cohorts; verify same Olink assay and batch normalization; z-score TNFRSF8 within cohort to enable cross-cohort comparison of standardized effect sizes (Cohen's d from β and residual SD).
    • Recompute effect estimates: linear model TNFRSF8 ~ HD_status + age + sex per cohort (statsmodels OLS), extract β, SE, 95% CI; reproduce reported values as validation of pipeline.
    • Moderation test: pooled model with cohort × HD_status interaction to formally test whether effect size differs between cohorts (Q/I² heterogeneity), rather than eyeballing the 2-fold difference.
    • Meta-analysis: inverse-variance weighted fixed- and random-effects pooled β; sensitivity analysis restricted to manifest HDGECs (stage-matched comparison).
    • Contextualize: overlay longitudinal slope (β = -0.11 NPX/yr, p = 0.017) and clinical correlations (cUHDRS β = 0.06; TFC ρ = 0.65, n = 16) to assess whether effect-size divergence tracks stage distribution.

    Missing for a rigorous comparison: discovery-cohort CI/SE for the adjusted β, per-subject NPX data (supplementary material), and validation cUHDRS scores — the latter prevented cross-cohort clinical-correlation replication .



    Feedback:    

    Updated: September 21, 2026

     Top Data Sources ExportMCP


     Hypothesis Graveyard


    TNFRSF8 reduction as a primary neurodegeneration marker: weaker than the NfL hypothesis because TNFRSF8 was not significantly associated with predicted years to onset in premanifest carriers (p = 0.059, positive trend), whereas NfL was (p = 2.7×10⁻⁴).

     Science Art


    Analyze Data: Compare TNFRSF8 effect sizes across discovery and validation HD cohorts Science Art

     Science Movie


    Make a narrated HD Science movie for this answer ($32 per minute)




     Discussion


    Stay current without chasing every paper.

    Know what changed, what holds up, and what remains uncertain. Every Friday. No ads.


    My BGPT






     Trending