Chemerin Levels in Acute Coronary Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the relevant published studies exploring the association between chemerin concentrations and acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). METHODS: A systematic search was performed in October 2021 using PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library. We included full articles and assessed their quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa score. RESULTS: We found 6 studies in the systematic review and 5 of these were included in our meta-analysis. Mean difference (MD) of 41.69 ng/mL (95% CI, 10.07-73.30), 132.14 ng/mL (95% CI, -102.12-366.40), and 62.10 ng/mL (95% CI, 10.31-113.89) in chemerin levels was seen in ACS patients vs control subjects, ACS patients vs stable angina pectoris patients (SAP), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) ACS patients vs nondiabetic ACS patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Chemerin levels were significantly elevated in patients with ACS compared to controls, as well as in T2DM-ACS patients compared to nondiabetic ACS patients. However, no significant MD in chemerin levels was observed between SAP and ACS patients.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".