Association between serum/plasma levels of adiponectin and obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) and a variety of disease from obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease has been investigated previously. Reduced adiponectin levels are also associated with increased risk of these disease. However, whether serum/plasma adiponectin levels in OSAHS patients are lower than their counterparts remain controversial. Therefore, this study evaluated the association between serum/plasma adiponectin levels and OSAHS. We performed a comprehensive literature search to locate eligible articles published on electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, WANFANG (Chinese database), VIP (Chinese Database) and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Pooled standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated as effect size. Heterogeneity test was performed by Cochrane Q test and I 2 test. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis were employed to detect the sources of the heterogeneity. RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 software were used in this meta-analysis for data synthesis. A total of 20 eligible studies with 28 databases involving 1356 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Results revealed that serum/plasma adiponectin levels in OSAHS patients were significantly lower than that in controls [SMD = − 0.71, 95% CI = − 0.92 to − 0.49, p < 0.001]. Subgroup analysis indicated that the heterogeneity would decreased when subgroup analysis was stratified by race. In addition, meta-regression analysis also suggested that the adiponectin levels were only significantly correlated with race. The removal of any independent study did not affect the pooled SMD in the sensitivity analysis. The serum/plasma adiponectin levels were significantly lower in OSAHS patients than that in control subjects, suggesting a possible role of adiponectin in OSAHS pathogenesis, deserves further studies as a potential marker of OSAHS.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.064 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".