Malondialdehyde concentrations in obsessive–compulsive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background This meta-analysis aimed to investigate serum and plasma malondialdehyde (MDA) levels in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) in comparison to healthy controls. Methods Following the PRISMA protocol, we searched for the relevant studies through the databases of Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, and web of science until September 2019 with no time restriction. Overall, nine studies were included in the current meta-analysis. Data were pooled using a random-effects model; in addition, standard mean difference (SMD) and/or weight mean difference (WMD) was calculated. Cochran’s Q test and I-square (I 2 ) statistics were used to evaluate between-study heterogeneity. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Statistical analyses were done using the STATA version 14. Results Our systematic review included nine case–control studies (including 367 cases and 337 controls). Pooling findings from these studies showed a significantly higher MDA level in OCD patient compared to control groups (SMD = 1.62; 95% CI [0.53, 2.72]; I 2 = 96.9%; Pheterogeneity (Ph) < 0.001). This finding remained unchanged among studies which reported MDA in the same unit (WMD = 1.93; 95% CI [0.27, 3.59]; I 2 = 99.2%; Ph < 0.001). Subgroup analysis by the study location and sample size revealed findings that were also significant. Conclusion We found that MDA levels are higher in OCD patients than healthy controls. This finding highlights the importance of inflammatory responses in OCD patients that should be considered for future investigations. Further studies are recommended to expand current knowledge on this issue.
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 | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".