Associations between PPARG polymorphisms and the risk of essential hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARG) plays an important role in the pathogenesis and maintenance of essential hypertension (EH). It has been suggested that polymorphisms of PPARG are associated with the risk of EH. However, findings to date remain controversial. To elucidate the associations between the PPARG Pro12Ala and C161T polymorphisms and EH risk, a meta-analysis was carried out. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, CNKI (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure), VIP and Wanfang databases was conducted. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to estimate the size of the effect using the random-effects model. At the same time, the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI was used for the meta-analysis of the PPARG Pro12Ala polymorphism and blood pressure. RESULTS: Finally, Fifteen papers (seventeen studies) including 4,151 cases and 4,997 controls to evaluate the association of the PPARGPro12Ala polymorphism and EH risk, were included in this study. Overall, the results suggested that Ala allele was associated with the decreased EH risk (for allelic model, OR = 0.757, 95%CI: 0.624-0.918, P = 0.005; for dominant model, OR = 0.771, 95%CI: 0.627-0.946, P = 0.013). The subgroup analysis stratified by ethnicity showed that the significant association between the PPARG Pro12Ala polymorphism and EH was only detected in the Asian subgroup. There was no difference in blood pressure values between Ala carriers and non-carriers. For the C161T polymorphism, only 5 studies comprising 1,118 cases and 1,357 controls met the inclusion criteria. The overall results showed that the PPARG C161T polymorphism was not associated with the risk of EH. But in the subgroup analysis, we found that the PPARG C161T polymorphism significantly associated with the risk of EH in the Asian subgroup (for allelic model, OR = 0.719, 95% CI: 0.537-0.963, P = 0.027; for dominant model, OR = 0.653, 95% CI: 0.439-0.972, P = 0.036). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggested that the PPARG polymorphisms might be associated with the risk of EH.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".