Lack of association of CYP11B2-344C/T polymorphism with essential hypertension: a meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis was carried out to evaluate the correlation between CYP11B2-344C/T polymorphism and essential hypertension susceptibility. METHODS: By retrieving relevant databases and collecting domestic and international literatures about the correlation between CYP11B2-344C/T polymorphism and essential hypertension, the quality of literature were evaluated according to NEWCASTLE-OTTAWA case-control study quality rating scale (NOS). RevMan 5.0 was used to select the best genetic model, analysis the heterogeneity, calculate combined OR and the 95% CI. RESULTS: 8532 subjects were included in this study. Compared with the control group, the OR (95% CI) values of dominant model, recessive model, and additive model were 1.01 (95% CI: 0.81~1.25), 1.03 (95% CI: 0.83~1.19) and 1.10 (95% CI: 0.93-1.29). CONCLUSION: There is no evidence to confirm that CYP11B2 (-344C/T) polymorphism is associated with susceptibility of essential hypertension.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".