The Associations between Apolipoprotein E Gene Epsilon2/Epsilon3/Epsilon4 Polymorphisms and the Risk of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: Apolipoprotein E (APOE) plays important roles in lipoprotein metabolism and cardiovascular disease. Evidence suggests the APOE gene epsilon2/epsilon3/epsilon4 (ε2/□□3/□□4) polymorphisms might be associated with the susceptibility of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, no clear consensus has yet been established. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis is to provide a precise conclusion on the potential association between APOE ε2/□□3/□□4 polymorphisms and the risk of CAD in patients with T2DM based on case-control studies. Methods: Pubmed, Embase, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases were searched for all relevant studies prior to August 2017 in English and Chinese language. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the strength of the relationships. The between-study heterogeneity was evaluated by Cochran's Q test and the I2 index to adopt fixed- or random- effect models. Results: A total of thirteen studies were eligible for inclusion. There was evidence for significant associations between APOE ε4 mutation and the risk of CAD in patients with T2DM (for ε3/ε4 vs. ε3/□□3: OR=1.69, 95% CI=1.38-2.08, P<0.001; for ε4/ε4 vs. ε3/□□3: OR=2.72, 95% CI=1.61-4.60, P<0.001; for ε4/ε4+ε3/ε4 vs. ε3/□□3: OR=1.83, 95% CI=1.52-2.22, P<0.001; for ε4 allele vs. ε3 allele: OR=1.64, 95% CI=1.40-1.94, P<0.001). In contrast, no significant associations were found in genetic model of APOE ε2 mutation (for ε2/ε2 vs. ε3/□□3: OR=1.67, 95% CI=0.90-3.09, P=0.104; for ε2/ε3 vs. ε3/□□3: OR=1.18, 95% CI=0.93-1.51, P=0.175; for ε2/ε2+ε2/ε3 vs. ε3/□□3: OR=1.26, 95% CI=0.88-1.82, P=0.212; for ε2 allele vs. ε3 allele: OR=1.34, 95% CI=0.98-1.84, P=0.07). Conclusions: The APOE gene ε4 mutation is associated with an increased risk of CAD in patients with T2DM, while the ε2 variation has null association with this disease.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".