MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922096605 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023918

Relationship between serum osteocalcin/undercarboxylated osteocalcin and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review/meta-analysis study protocol

2019· article· en· W2922096605 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yihui Liu, Xiaoying Liu, Joshua R. Lewis, Kaye Brock, Tara C. Brennan‐Speranza, Armando Teixeira‐Pinto

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicVitamin K Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyInsulin resistanceOsteocalcinMeta-analysisType 2 diabetesSystematic reviewDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineGlucose homeostasisInsulinEndocrinologyType 2 Diabetes MellitusCohort studyMEDLINEBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The global burden of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is steadily increasing. Experimental studies have demonstrated that a novel hormone secreted by bone cells, osteocalcin (OC), can stimulate beta-cell proliferation and improve insulin sensitivity in mice. Observational studies in humans have investigated the relationship between OC and metabolic parameters, and T2DM. Importantly, few studies have reported on the undercarboxylated form of OC (ucOC), which is the putative active form of OC suggested to affect glucose metabolism. OBJECTIVES: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to: (1) compare the levels of serum OC and ucOC between T2DM and normal glucose-tolerant controls (NGC); (2) investigate the risk ratios between serum OC and ucOC, and T2DM; (3) determine the correlation coefficient between OC and ucOC and fasting insulin levels, homeostatic model assessment-insulin resistance, haemoglobin A1c and fasting glucose levels and (4) explore potential sources of between-study heterogeneity. The secondary objective is to compare the serum OC and ucOC between pre-diabetes (PD) and NGC and between T2DM and PD. HODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will report items in line with the guidelines outlined in preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. We will include observational studies (cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies) and intervention studies with baseline data. Three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and SCOPUS) will be searched from inception until July 2018 without language restrictions. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts and conduct a full-text assessment to identify eligible studies. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus with a third reviewer. The risk of bias assessment will be conducted by two reviewers independently based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Potential sources of between-study heterogeneity will be tested using meta-regression/subgroup analyses. Contour-enhanced funnel plots and Egger's test will be used to identify potential publication bias. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required. We will disseminate the results to a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017073127.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.023
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.003

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 head0.296
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicVitamin K Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207