Association Between the <i>IL-10-1082G/A</i> , <i>IL-10-592A/C</i> , and <i>IL-10-819G/A</i> Polymorphisms and Atopic Dermatitis Susceptibility: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: The aim of this study was to summarize the currently available evidence on the associations between the IL-10-1082G/A, IL-10-592A/C, and IL-10-819G/A polymorphisms and susceptibility to atopic dermatitis (AD). Materials and Methods: Five electronic databases including PubMed, the Web of Science, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched for potential studies. Studies illustrating the association of the IL-10-1082G/A, IL-10-592A/C, and IL-10-819G/A polymorphisms and AD susceptibility were included in this meta-analysis. For a study to be included, it had to have been published before September 20, 2018. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Summary odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to evaluate potential associations under five genetic models. Results: A total of 15 case–control studies comprising of 1647 AD patients and 2031 controls were included in this meta-analysis. Their methodological qualities were generally high. We confirmed an association between the IL-10-819G/A polymorphism and AD, but there was an insignificant association identified between the IL-10-1082G/A and the IL-10-592A/C polymorphisms and AD when all ethnic groups were considered together. The subgroup analyses revealed some ethnic-specific effects. For the IL-10-819G/A polymorphism, individuals with the GG-genotype seemed to have an increased risk of AD among Caucasian populations, but less so in the Asian populations. However, for the IL-10-1082G/A polymorphism, the GG-genotype carriers seemed to be more susceptible to AD in the Asian populations than in the Caucasian populations. Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that the IL-10-819G/A polymorphism seems to be associated with increased risk of AD among Caucasian populations, and that the IL-10-1082G/A polymorphism seems to be correlated with AD among Asian populations.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".