Vitamin D binding protein gene polymorphisms and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A number of polymorphisms in vitamin D binding protein (VDBP) (GC) gene have been implicated in risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but the results were controversial. GC1F, GC1S, and GC2 are three common variants of the VDBP gene [single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs): rs7041 and rs4588], which were reported to be associated with COPD. This study aimed to explore the association between VDBP gene polymorphisms and COPD. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science (Medline) and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched for eligible case-control studies. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS). After the most appreciated genetic model was identified, a meta-analysis was performed to test the association between VDBP gene polymorphism and COPD. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) were performed respectively for the most appreciated genetic model, single allele comparison and homozygous gene model analysis. Summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) analyses were applied to evaluate the diagnostic performance of polymorphism of VDBP to COPD. RESULTS: Eight studies containing 2,216 participants were included. The analyses of the most appropriate genetic models offered significant results in recessive model of GC1F/1S group (OR =2.18), co-dominant genetic model in GC1F/2 group (1F-1F vs. 2-2: OR =4.87; 1F-2 vs. 2-2: OR =1.73; 1F-1F vs. 1F-2: OR =2.27). In single allele comparison, significant results were obtained in GC1F vs. GC1S and GC1F vs. GC2, with ORs were 1.47 and 1.77, respectively. In homozygous genes comparison, the OR was 2.51 in GC1F homozygote vs. other genotypes. Subgroup analyses offered the same significant results in Asian population, but not in Caucasian population. The SROC analyses showed the less accurate performance of polymorphism of VDBP to COPD. CONCLUSIONS: There is a close association between COPD and GC gene polymorphisms. The GC1F allele could be a risk factor, the GC1S and GC2 allele may be protective factors in Asian, but not in Caucasians.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".