Serological Association of Chlamydia pneumoniae Infection with Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated the serological association of Chlamydia pneumoniae infection with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Association of Research in Vision and Ophthalmology abstracts were searched to identify studies investigating the serological association of Chlamydia pneumoniae infection with age-related macular degeneration. The quality of original studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Heterogeneity was explored with meta-regression. The odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMD) of Chlamydia pneumoniae infection between AMD patients and controls were pooled. RESULTS: In total, 9 studies met the inclusion criteria using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale scores ranging from 4 to 9. There was heterogeneity among studies due to a difference in the study designs and measurement of exposure to Chlamydia pneumoniae infection. The overall OR of Chlamydia pneumoniae infection with AMD was 1.11 (95% confidence interval: 0.78-1.57, P = 0.56). The overall SMD of antibody titer between AMD and control was 0.43 (95% confidence interval: -0.12 to 0.99, P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the current published literature suggested no statistically significant association between Chlamydia pneumoniae infection and AMD.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".