Association of homocysteine with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To figure out the association between plasma Hcy status and type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). METHODS: We searched the PubMed Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library to identify eligible studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of selected studies. All analyses were performed using the STATA, version 12 software. RESULTS: 15 studies were included in this investigation. Our meta-analysis indicated that plasma Hcy concentrations in T1DM patients without any complications were normal compared with healthy people [13 studies, SMD: -0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.44 to 0.28, P=0.67]. However, a significant elevation of plasma Hcy concentrations was observed in T1DM patients with only diabetic retinopathy (DR) (5 studies, SMD: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.55, P=0.002), only diabetic nephropathy (DN) (4 studies, SMD: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.18 to 1.33, P=0.01) and both the two complications (3 studies, SMD: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.03 to 2.07, P=0.043) compared with T1DM patients without any complications. CONCLUSIONS: Homocysteine levels elevate in T1DM patients with DR and DN, but don't elevate in T1DM without any complications.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".