Circulating Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 Levels in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) levels have been investigated in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however, produced inconsistent results. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to derive a more precise conclusion about serum/plasma IGF-1 levels in RA patients. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases were searched up to December 2018 in English, and the studies comparing serum/plasma IGF-1 levels between RA group and healthy control group were what we are interested in. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The heterogeneity test was performed by the Cochrane Q statistic and I2 -statistic. The publication bias was evaluated by the funnel plot and Egger's test. The standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated by the fixed-effects or random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of eleven articles with 334 cases and 261 controls were finally included. Compared with the healthy group, the RA group had lower circulating IGF-1 levels (pooled SMD= -0.936, 95% CI= -1.382 to -0.489, p<0.001). The subgroup analysis showed that RA patients from Asia (SMD= -0.645, 95% CI= -1.063 to -0.228, p= 0.002) and Europe (SMD= -1.131, 95% CI= -1.767 to -0.495, p<0.001) had lower circulating IGF-1 levels, no significant difference in plasma/serum IGF-1 levels was observed in RA patients from America. Sensitivity analysis indicated the stability and credibility of the overall effect sizes. CONCLUSION: Patients with RA have lower circulating IGF-1 level than healthy controls, particularly for patients from Asia and Europe. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the role of IGF-1 in the pathological process of RA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".