Circulating retinol-binding protein 4 levels in gestational diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of observational studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retinol-binding protein 4 (RBP4) is a novel adipocyte-derived cytokine playing an important role in the regulation of energy metabolism and insulin sensitivity. Although the association between RBP4 and metabolic dysfunction is well established, studies on the relationship between circulating RBP4 levels and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have yielded inconclusive results. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate whether women with GDM had higher circulating RBP4 levels than the normglycemic pregnant women. PubMed, Web of Science and EMBASE were searched up to 1 August 2014. A total of 14 studies comprised of 884 women with GDM and 1251 normglycemic pregnant women were included. The overall results suggested that maternal circulating RBP4 levels were significantly higher in GDM than their normal controls (SMD: 0.49 μg/ml, 95% CI: 0.23-0.75 μg/ml, p < 0.001, random effect model). However, stratified results indicated that this significant difference only existed in the second/third trimester and was limited to Asian populations. Furthermore, subgroup analysis according to matched maternal age and BMI still demonstrated that GDM had higher circulating RBP4 levels than the normal controls. Our findings suggested that Asian women with GDM had increased circulating RBP4 levels in their second/third trimester.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it