A meta-analysis of leptin reference ranges in the healthy paediatric prepubertal population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The initial discovery of leptin (1994) has given rise to a substantial number of published studies. This study aimed at identifying the published data on the reference ranges of total, free and bound leptin concentration in the healthy prepubertal population. METHODS: A search was conducted on original English language studies published from 1994 to 2005 in the following databases: PubMed (n = 58), EMBASE (n = 4), Biological Abstracts (n = 2) and Science Finder Scholar (n = 66). A cited reference search was completed in Science Citation Index on studies with a leptin range. A meta-analysis was completed on included studies containing a dataset and a sample size for a leptin concentration range and/or mean+/-standard deviation for a healthy prepubertal population. Preanalytical and analytical variations were examined. Preanalytical variables included aspects such as fasting state and gender, while analytical variation comprised the type of leptin assay methodology. RESULTS: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. One study examined free leptin; 11 studies examined total concentration. No studies reported leptin reference ranges established by Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) criteria, although four studies reported specific study leptin ranges. The methodology of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay demonstrated a wider leptin range than radio immunoassay (0.56-36.35 vs. 1.01-12.21 ng/mL). Males had a significantly lower mean leptin concentration than females (P = 0.0006); obese children had a higher concentration than non-obese (P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: No studies have established CLSI-based leptin reference ranges in prepubertal healthy children and there is a wide variation in the published leptin concentrations. These differences suggest that caution should be used in the interpretation and comparison between studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".