UGT1A1*28 gene polymorphism was not associated with the risk of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between UGT1A1*28 gene polymorphism and the risk of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia (NHBI).Methods The studies meet certain selection condition which was obtained from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of included studies. Meta-analysis was performed according to criteria such as country. Hardy–Weinberg’s equilibrium (HWE) tests were performed on the control group using chi-square test, while the evaluation index was represented by odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Egger’s test and sensitivity analysis were used to evaluate the publication bias and reliability, repetitively.Results Totally, four studies with high overall quality were enrolled in this study. No association was observed between UGT1A1*28 gene polymorphisms and NHBI in allele model (TA7 versus TA6, OR (95% CI) = 2.13 (0.81–5.62), p = .13), codominance models (TA7/6 versus TA6/6, OR (95% CI) = 2.94 (0.90–9.57), p = .07; TA7/7 versus TA6/6, OR (95% CI) = 2.08 (0.37–11.52), p = .40), recessive model (TA7/7 versus TA6/6 + TA7/6, OR (95% CI) = 1.44 (0.41–5.14), p = .57), and dominant model (TA7/7 + TA7/6 versus TA6/6, OR (95% CI) = 2.92 (0.84–10.12), p = .09). Furthermore, there was no publication bias found in current meta-analysis.Conclusions Gene polymorphism of UGT1A1*28 might not be associated with the risk of NHBI.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".