Diabetes and Risk of Parkinson's Disease: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Case-Control Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether diabetes increases the risk of Parkinson's disease (PD) is still inconclusive. The objective of this updated meta-analysis is to synthesize evidence from case-control studies that evaluated the association between diabetes and the risk of PD. METHODS: Seven databases were searched to identify case-control studies that evaluated the association between diabetes and PD. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa scale. All data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.1 software. Subgroup analyses were also adopted, according to stratification on gender, geographic location, source of the control group, smoking, anti-diabetes drug prescription and duration of DM. RESULTS: Fourteen studies fulfilled inclusion criteria for meta-analysis, yielding a total of 21395 PD patients and 84579 control subjects. Individuals with diabetes were found to have a negative association with future PD (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.58-0.98) in spite of significant heterogeneity. In subgroup analyses, the negative correlation was still found in studies from North America, non-PD control groups from general population, never smoking individuals, and DM ascertainment based on questionnaire or self-report. Stratification of gender and DM duration showed no significant association. No association was also found in European and Asian individuals, hospital-based controls, ever smoking subjects, DM assessment by medical record or physician diagnosis, and insulin prescription for DM. CONCLUSION: Evidence from case-control studies suggested that diabetic individuals may have a decreased incidence of PD despite significant heterogeneity. More researches are warranted to clarify an understanding of the association between diabetes and risk of PD.
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 | 0.023 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".