The role of single nucleotide polymorphisms of IL-1A -889C>T (rs1800587), TNF-A -238G>A (rs361525), and VDR TaqI (rs731236) on susceptibility to herniated nucleus pulposus: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : The pathogenesis of herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP) is complex and may involve the wide variety of gene polymorphism. However, the reports from the existing studies are inconclusive. The objective of this study was to determine the role of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in interleukin 1 alpha ( IL-1A ), tumor necrosis factor-alpha ( TNF-A ), and vitamin D receptor ( VDR ) genes on the susceptibility to herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP). Methods : Four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science) were searched as of April 1 st , 2021. Authors, publication year, targeted genes, genotype and allele frequency in each case and control groups were collected. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate the publication quality. The pooled estimates of association of IL-1A -889C>T (rs1800587), TNF-A -238G>A (rs361525), and VDR TaqI (rs731236) and susceptibility to HNP were assessed using Z test. Results : We screened 3,067 unique studies for eligibility and three, two and nine case-control studies on IL-1A -889C>T, TNF-A -238G>A, and VDR TaqI were included, respectively, in our meta-analysis. The studies consisting 369 HNP cases and 433 controls for IL-1A -889C>T, 252 cases and 259 controls for TNF-A -238G>A and 1130 cases and 2096 controls for VDR TaqI. Our pooled estimates indicated that there was no significant association of those SNPs with the susceptibility to HNP in any genotype, dominant model, recessive model, or allele comparations. Conclusion : Although individual studies suggested the important role of gene expression dysregulation associated with SNPs in IL-1A , TNF-A , and VDR , our data indicated that IL-1A -889C>T, TNF-A -238G>A, and VDR TaqI had weak association with HNP susceptibility in both genotypes and allele distributions. However, since heterogeneity was identified among studies included in this meta-analysis, further meta-analysis with a larger population and subgroup analysis on specific population are warranted to support this finding.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".