The Association Between Foxp3 Polymorphisms and Risk of Graves' Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out with the aim of investigating the relationship between Foxp3 polymorphisms (rs3761547, r3761548 and rs3761549) and the risk of Graves’ disease (GD). Methods: Four online database including PubMed, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science and CNKI were searched to identify observational studies that evaluated the association between Foxp3 polymorphisms and risk of GD. The strength of associations was indicated as odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95%CI) under the allelic model. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the methodological quality. Pre-specified subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Publication bias was detected by Egger’s and Begg’s tests. Results: Eight case control studies involving 3104 GD patients and 3599 healthy controls were included. The methodological quality of included studies was considered to be moderate to high. The results of our meta-analysis supported no association of rs3761547 and risk of GD in Asians (OR: 1.07, 95%CI 0.97, 1.19, P=0.18). Evidence for rs3761547 and GD risk among Caucasians was still limited because only one study reported marginally increased risk of GD with the minor allele of rs3761547 (P=0.04). The variant allele of both rs3761548 (OR: 1.31, 95%CI 1.04, 1.64; P=0.02) and rs3761549 (OR: 1.30, 95%CI 1.03, 1.64; P=0.03) was associated with increased risk of GD among Asians, but neither polymorphism turned out to be related with GD among Caucasians. Conclusion: Rs3761548 and rs3761549 polymorphisms in Foxp3 were associated with risk of GD among Asians, possibly due to suppressed function of regulatory T cells and augmented autoimmune response. Their genetic effect among Caucasians remained to be confirmed by future large-scale and well-designed studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".