Associations between <i>ERAP1</i> Gene Polymorphisms and Psoriasis Susceptibility: A Meta‐Analysis of Case‐Control Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is to investigate the relationship of endoplasmic reticulum aminopeptidase 1 ( ERAP1 ) gene polymorphisms with psoriasis. Five databases of PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for potential studies until 25 December 2019. Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of included studies. Meta‐analysis was performed with PRISMA. A total of 9 case‐control studies including 4858 psoriasis cases and 10,542 healthy controls were included. Three loci of ERAP1 gene polymorphisms (rs26653, rs30187, and rs27524) were evaluated in this meta‐analysis. There was no significant association between rs26653 polymorphism and risk of psoriasis (C vs. G, OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.80‐1.28, P = 0.93). However, there was a significant association between rs30187 polymorphisms and psoriasis susceptibility (T vs. C, OR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.15‐1.32, P < 0.00001) and a significant association between rs27524 polymorphisms and psoriasis susceptibility (A vs. G, OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.09‐1.25, P < 0.00001). For there were insufficient data of rs27044, rs151823, rs2248374, and rs2910686, we only conducted a systematic review for them. The rs30187 (C/T) and rs27524 (G/A) polymorphisms of ERAP1 are associated with increased risk of psoriasis. However, no significant association is observed between rs26653 (G/C) polymorphism and risk of psoriasis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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; 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".