Circulating visfatin levels in the second and third trimester of pregnancies with gestational diabetes: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are multiple published conflicting associations of the adipocytokine visfatin with gestational diabetes. In this study, we attempted to investigate this relationship via a systematic review of the published literature. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Literature retrieval using PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus and Hydi databases followed by article selection and data extraction were conducted. Relevant studies published up to June 2018 were included. In total, 29 cohorts that were published in 27 articles were analyzed. Three studies carried out in early pregnancy were excluded. A total of 2365 individuals, with 1069 gestational diabetes (GDM) cases and 1296 controls from studies describing visfatin in the second or third trimester of gestation were included. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The difference in visfatin levels between women with GDM and the controls in the second and third trimester was measured by weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was inspected by using both subgroup and meta-regression analysis. Analysis was restricted to studies describing singleton pregnancies. The quality of included studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in circulating visfatin levels in GDM during the second trimester of pregnancy (WMD -0.30 ng/mL, 95% CI: -2.06, 1.45, SE=0.895, P=0.733) was detected. Meta-analysis of the studies in the third trimester revealed a significant negative effect, that was however driven by only one study. This finding limits the meaningful interpretation of the pooled analysis. Significant heterogeneity was identified between studies, and meta-regression analysis showed that homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance contributes significantly to heterogeneity. In conclusion, our findings suggest that peripheral blood visfatin concentration cannot be robustly associated with gestational diabetes status in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".