MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772041452 · doi:10.3389/fphys.2017.01031

The Associations between Apolipoprotein E Gene Epsilon2/Epsilon3/Epsilon4 Polymorphisms and the Risk of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

2017· article· en· W2772041452 on OpenAlexaff
Jian‐Quan Luo, Huan Ren, Hoan Linh Banh, Mou-Ze Liu, Ping Xu, Pingfei Fang, Da-Xiong Xiang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Physiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsInternal medicineApolipoprotein EOdds ratioCoronary artery diseaseType 2 Diabetes MellitusMedicineDiabetes mellitusAlleleConfidence intervalGastroenterologyMeta-analysisDiseaseEndocrinologyGeneticsGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PhysiologySame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207