MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gene-environment Interaction on the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Among Ethnic Minority Populations Living in Europe and North America: A Systematic Review

2019· review· en· W2947484672 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammad Hadi Zafarmand, Parvin Tajik, René Spijker, Charles Agyemang

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Diabetes Reviews · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsEthnic groupMedicineType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusGerontologyEnvironmental healthEndocrinologySociologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The body of evidence on gene-environment interaction (GEI) related to type 2 diabetes (T2D) has grown in the recent years. However, most studies on GEI have sought to explain variation within individuals of European ancestry and results among ethnic minority groups are inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To investigate any interaction between a gene and an environmental factor in relation to T2D among ethnic minority groups living in Europe and North America. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline and EMBASE databases for the published literature in English up to 25th March 2019. The screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by reviewers independently. RESULTS: 1068 studies identified through our search, of which nine cohorts of six studies evaluating several different GEIs were included. The mean follow-up time in the included studies ranged from 5 to 25.7 years. Most studies were relatively small scale and few provided replication data. All studies included in the review included ethnic minorities from North America (Native-Americans, African- Americans, and Aboriginal Canadian), none of the studies in Europe assessed GEI in relation to T2D incident in ethnic minorities. The only significant GEI among ethnic minorities was HNF1A rs137853240 and smoking on T2D incident among Native-Canadians (Pinteraction = 0.006). CONCLUSION: There is a need for more studies on GEI among ethnicities, broadening the spectrum of ethnic minority groups being investigated, performing more discovery using genome-wide approaches, larger sample sizes for these studies by collaborating efforts such as the InterConnect approach, and developing a more standardized method of reporting GEI studies are discussed.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Diabetes ReviewsSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207