Gene–environment interaction between adiponectin gene polymorphisms and environmental factors on the risk of diabetic retinopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS/INTRODUCTION: To evaluate whether the adiponectin gene is associated with diabetic retinopathy (DR) risk and interaction with environmental factors modifies the DR risk, and to investigate the relationship between serum adiponectin levels and DR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four adiponectin polymorphisms were evaluated in 372 DR cases and 145 controls. Differences in environmental factors between cases and controls were evaluated by unconditional logistic regression analysis. The model-free multifactor dimensionality reduction method and traditional multiple regression models were applied to explore interactions between the polymorphisms and environmental factors. RESULTS: Using the Bonferroni method, we found no significant associations between four adiponectin polymorphisms and DR susceptibility. Multivariate logistic regression found that physical activity played a protective role in the progress of DR, whereas family history of diabetes (odds ratio 1.75) and insulin therapy (odds ratio 1.78) were associated with an increased risk for DR. The interaction between the C-11377 G (rs266729) polymorphism and insulin therapy might be associated with DR risk. Family history of diabetes combined with insulin therapy also increased the risk of DR. No adiponectin gene polymorphisms influenced the serum adiponectin levels. Serum adiponectin levels did not differ between the DR group and non-DR group. CONCLUSIONS: No significant association was identified between four adiponectin polymorphisms and DR susceptibility after stringent Bonferroni correction. The interaction between C-11377G (rs266729) polymorphism and insulin therapy, as well as the interaction between family history of diabetes and insulin therapy, might be associated with DR susceptibility.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".