<p>The association between omentin and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: A number of studies have examined the association between the serum levels of omentin and diabetes, but the findings have been inconclusive. Herein, we systematically reviewed available observational studies to elucidate the overall relationship between omentin and diabetes, including type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) among adolescent and adult population. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane’s Library, Science Direct, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ISI Web of Science databases were searched for all available literature until January 2019 for studies assessing the association between omentin and diabetes. The Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of each study. Results: A total of 28 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis. There was a significant association between serum omentin and diabetes (WMD−1.68; 95% CI, −2.17 to −1.19; P <0.001). The result of our sub-group analysis based on participants’ health status revealed that omentin was significantly lower in T2DM and IGT subjects but not in T1DM ones compared to healthy controls. Conclusion: We found that serum omentin level is significantly lower in T2DM and IGT patients but not in T1DM ones. These data could be used by clinicians for early diagnosis and management of diabetes. Furthermore, we need more clinical trials to investigate new agents which could influence omentin levels. Keywords: omentin, diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, systematic review, meta-analysis
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".