Polymorphisms in <i>CRYAA</i> Promoter with Susceptibility to Cataract: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim Polymorphisms in alpha A crystallin (CRYAA) gene have been implicated in susceptibility to cataracts, but some published studies have reported inconclusive results. Our study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis investigating the association between polymorphisms in CRYAA and susceptibility to cataracts.Methods The PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched for all articles published up to 20 March 2019 that reported cataracts and three polymorphisms (rs3761381, rs13053109, and rs7278468) of CRYAA. Afterwards, statistical analysis was performed for available articles.Results Four articles published between 2014 and 2017 were included, involving 869 cases and 1,950 controls. There was no statistical evidence of an association between cataract risk and CRYAA gene polymorphisms rs13053109 (p > .05) and rs3761382 (p > .05). Significant decreased cataract risks were observed for different gene models of rs7278468 polymorphism: for G vs T, OR = 0.6640; 95% CI, 0.5361–0.7736, p < .001; for GG vs TT, OR = 0.3864; 95% CI, 0.2379–0.6278, p < .001; for GG vs TT+GT, OR = 0.4492; 95% CI, 0.2829–0.7134, p = .001; for GG+GT vs TT, OR = 0.6645; 95% CI, 0.5058–0.8729, p = .003; for GT vs TT, OR = 0.7508; 95% CI, 0.5639–0.9996, p = .050.Conclusion Our meta-analysis indicated that rs3761382 and rs13053109 polymorphisms of CRYAA may not be associated with susceptibility to cataracts. Individuals carrying mutant genotype of rs7278468 polymorphism are associated with a significantly decreased cataract risk.Abbreviations CC: Congenital cataract; ARC: Age-related cataract; SNPs: single nucleotide polymorphisms; NOS: Newcastle–Ottawa Scale; HWE: Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; qPCR: quantitative polymerase chain reaction; NO: nuclear opalescence; NC: nuclear color
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".