Associations between Apolipoprotein E(APOE) polymorphisms and Cerebral Palsy: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Apolipoprotein E (APOE ) is one of the main apolipoproteins playing important roles in the central neuronal system. The relationship between polymorphisms and cerebral palsy (CP) is contradictory.Methods The overall experimental studies of APOE polymorphisms and CP risk were researched. We conducted eligible studies identified from Elsevier Science Direct, PubMed, Springer Link, WEB OF SCIENCE, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and WanFang Data up to February 2019 to make a systematic review.Results Totally 10 eligible studies were used to meta-analysis (1570 CP cases and 1982 subjects). Significant associations with CP were observed for APOE polymorphisms in allele (ε4: P < 0.001, OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.99; ε2: P = 0.04, OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.96) and dominant (E4 carriers: P = 0.004, OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.92) models in overall analyses. Interestingly, subgroup analysis indicated a significant increased risk for CP in Chinese patients of CP with APOE ε4 (P<0.00001, OR 3.71, 95% CI 2.37 to 5.78) and E4 carriers(P<0.00001, OR 3.95, 95% CI 2.38 to 6.53), but not with APOE ε2 (P=0.69, OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.65).Conclusions Combined with the results of our analysis, we concluded that the risk of CP was significantly increased in ε4 individuals. But meta-analysis yielded an incongruent result for the APOE ε2 allele between in multi-ethnic samples and in Chinese subgroup. These conclusions should be confirmed through further studies.
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 | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 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".