Large-Scale Gene-Centric Meta-Analysis across 39 Studies Identifies Type 2 Diabetes Loci

To identify genetic factors contributing to type 2 diabetes (T2D), we performed large-scale meta-analyses by using a custom similar to 50,000 SNP genotyping array (the ITMAT-Broad-CARe array) with similar to 2000 candidate genes in 39 multiethnic population-based studies, case-control studies, and clinical trials totaling 17,418 cases and 70,298 controls. First, meta-analysis of 25 studies comprising 14,073 cases and 57,489 controls of European descent confirmed eight established T2D loci at genome-wide significance. In silico follow-up analysis of putative association signals found in independent genome-wide association studies (including 8,130 cases and 38,987 controls) performed by the DIAGRAM consortium identified a T2D locus at genome-wide significance (GATAD2A/CILP2/PBX4; p = 5.7 x 10(-9)) and two loci exceeding study-wide significance (SREBF1, and TH/INS; p <2.4 x 10(-6)). Second, meta-analyses of 1,986 cases and 7,695 controls from eight African-American studies identified study-wide-significant (p = 2.4 x 10(-7)) variants in HMGA2 and replicated variants in TCF7L2 (p = 5.1 x 10(-15)). Third, conditional analysis revealed multiple known and novel independent signals within five T2D-associated genes in samples of European ancestry and within HMGA2 in African-American samples. Fourth, a multiethnic meta-analysis of all 39 studies identified T2D-associated variants in BCL2 (p = 2.1 x 10(-8)). Finally, a composite genetic score of SNPs from new and established T2D signals was significantly associated with increased risk of diabetes in African-American, Hispanic, and Asian populations. In summary, large-scale meta-analysis involving a dense gene-centric approach has uncovered additional loci and variants that contribute to T2D risk and suggests substantial overlap of T2D association signals across multiple ethnic groups

Macrorules for summarizing texts : the development of expertise

Running title: Development of expertise."National Inst. of Child Health and Human Development"--Doc. resume."National Inst. of Education"--Doc. resume.Bibliography: leaves 28-30Supported by grant HD-06864 and a Research Career Development Award (HD-00111)Supported by NIE contract HEW NIE C-400-76-011

Learning to learn : on training students to learn from texts

Based on an invited address given by the first author at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association in Boston, April 1980.Bibliography: leaves 28-33Supported by grants HD 05951, HD 06864, and Research Career Development Award HD 00111 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; and in part by the National Institute of Education under contract no. HEW-NIE-C-400-76-011

The development of plans for summarizing texts

"National Institute of Child Health and Human Development"--1st prelim. p.Bibliography: leaves 29-32Supported by grant HD-06864 and ... HD-00111, both from NICHH

Teaching Summarization Skills: A Comparison of Training Methods

228 p.Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1980.The ability to summarize is an important skill that is dependent on correctly identifying and concisely relating main ideas. Despite the fact that locating main ideas is a basic comprehension process, students, particularly poorer ones, experience major difficulties producing summaries. For example, in recent research, Brown and Day developed five rules that could be used to condense text material: (1) delete redundancies, (2) delete trivia, (3) substitute a superordinate term for a list of exemplars, (4) locate any topic sentences and (5) invent topic sentences for paragraphs that lack them. The last two of these rules involve the identification of main ideas at the paragraph level. When junior college students were asked to summarize two simple expository texts, they failed to use these rules well. In fact, they performed more like 7th graders than like university students. We, therefore, undertook to train a group of junior college students how to summarize.In the first experiment, junior college students of two ability levels, average and poor writers, were given one of four types of training that varied in explicitness: (1) self-management--students were given general encouragement to write a good summary, to capture main ideas, etc., but they were not told rules for achieving this end; (2) rules alone--students were taught to employ the five rules of summarization; (3) rules plus--students were given the self-management training of group one and the rules training of group two but were left to integrate the two sets of information for themselves; and (4) rules integrated--students received instruction in the rules integrated with explicit training in the monitoring of these rules, e.g., students were shown how to check that each paragraph had a topic sentence either underlined or written in. In the second experiment, a third level of students, poor readers, were given the most explicit training and their improvement was compared to that of average and poor writers who had received the same instruction. The hypotheses were that even with training time held constant, more explicit instruction would result in greater improvement and that better students would improve more and would require less explicit instruction to do so.The explicitness of the training did influence how much students improved. Students given only self-management instructions did not write significantly better summaries. But those subjects given even minimal training in the rules improved the quality of their summaries and they maintained that improvement over time. Within the three rule training groups, the effect of explicitness was also evident. On the two main idea identification rules, the conditions were ordered rules integrated > rules plus > rules alone. The chance probability of finding this ordering only once is .16. It was found repeatedly. Ability level did play an important role by affecting the amount of improvement students made and the degree of instruction necessary for them to show any gains, but it did not alter the ordering of the conditions. Only on easy rules did the ordering of the training conditions vary. Most students used the deletion rules efficiently on the pretest and, therefore, needed no instruction on them, while on the mechanical superordination rule, a brief explanation of how it worked produced immediate, efficient use.Thus, ability level and the difficulty of the material being taught interact to determine how explicit training must be. On difficult concepts and with slower students, explicit training in strategies for accomplishing a task coupled with routines to insure the successful application of those strategies is clearly necessary.U of I OnlyRestricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETD