The Cross-Talk Between Atopic Dermatitis and Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with various systemic diseases. However, its association with diabetes mellitus (DM) was discussed controversially. Few researchers reviewed the association of these two common morbid disorders. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the relationship between AD and DM. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed including Epub and ahead of print (198 articles identified) and Cochrane (13 articles) databases. The searching engine was set to include case-control, prospective and retrospective cohorts, and cross-sectional studies from the first published up to February 12, 2021. Two hundred and eleven were identified, eighteen full texts were screened; of them, six were included in the final meta-analysis. The keywords used were AD, diabetes mellitus, type 1 diabetes, and type 2 diabetes. A datasheet was used to record the author's name, year of publication, country and type of the studies, number of events, and total number in the two arms (patients and controls). Results: Out of the 211 references identified, six studies were pooled to test the association between diabetes mellitus and AD. The studies showed that AD is lower among patients with DM, odds ratio, 0.69, 95% CI, and 0.67-0.72. No heterogeneity was observed (Chi-Square, 4.12, degree of freedom (df.)= 5, and I2 = 0%, P-value), 0.53 and P-value for overall effect, <0.001. The included studies were published in Europe (five) and Canada (one study) and included 162,882 patients and 12,164 events, four of the studied articles were case-control studies, one retrospective, and one cross-sectional. Conclusion: AD was lower among patients with DM compared to their counterparts without the disease. Further studies focusing on the genetic and environmental factors linking AD and diabetes are needed.
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 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 | 0.021 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.065 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".