Association Between Interleukin-6 -572 C>G and -174 G>C Polymorphisms and Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether hypertension is associated with -572 C>G or -174 G>C polymorphism in interleukin (IL)-6 genes still remains hazy and ambiguous.We conducted a meta-analysis to offer a more reliable and clearer evaluation about the association.Electronic literature databases including PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang database were searched.The study included the following: evaluating associations between -572 C>G or -174 G>C polymorphism in IL-6 gene and hypertension; case-control design; essential information must be offered; precise diagnostic criteria of hypertension; and no language restriction.Patients who met the diagnostic criteria and controls without a history of hypertension were included. Interventions were not available.A quality assessment was conducted using Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Combined odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated in 5 genetic models. Sources of heterogeneity were explored by subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and Galbraith plots. Finally, test for publication bias was performed to prove the stabilization.Fifteen studies were finally included. Eleven articles were judged high-quality reports. Overall, the -572 C>G polymorphism was proved to be significantly associated with hypertension in 4 genetic models. Subgroup analysis based on ethnicity revealed significant associations in Asian population in recessive model and homozygote comparison. The association in Europeans and Mid-East required further confirmation. No significant association was observed between the -174 G>C polymorphism and hypertension under all of the genetic models.The limitations of the study were the following: restrictive number of eligible studies limited the extrapolation range in subgroup analysis; gene-environment factors could not be described due to lack of data; some relevant studies could not be included because of various reasons.Current researches supported the association between the development of hypertension and the -572 C>G rather than -174 G>C polymorphism. Future well designed epidemiological studies may evaluate the possible gene-environment interactions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".