Systematic review and meta-analysis of the related factors for diabetic retinopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The related factors of diabetic retinopathy (DR) had attracted the attention of many scholars, and a large number of articles had been published, but the research results were not consistent. A meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize recent evidence, aiming at exploring the relationship between DR and multiple risk factors. METHODS: The China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, Wanfang, PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases were searched. The English and Chinese keywords included diabetes mellitus, DM, diabetic retinopathy, DR, and risk factors. In case-control study, the subjects are DR patients and NDR patients. In the cohort study, the subjects were diabetic patients. Measures in the intervention and control groups were described in detail. The methodological quality of the included literature was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Egger's test is used to identify publication bias. With odds ratio (OR) as the effect index, heterogeneity test was conducted, and fixed effect model or random effect model was selected to calculate the combined OR and 95% CI. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 12 literatures and 13 related risk factors, of which 4 (33.33%) were cohort studies and 8 (66.66%) were case-control studies. NOS shows that there are 7 references with 8 points (58.33%), 4 references with 7 points (33.33%) and 1 reference with 6 points (8.33%). The risk factors associated with the occurrence of DR were: course of diabetes (OR =1.03, 95% CI: 1.02-1.03), systolic blood pressure (OR =1.01, 95% CI: 1.01-1.02), body mass index (OR =0.96, 95% CI: 0.94-0.99), HbA1c (OR =1.08, 95% CI: 1.06-1.10), total cholesterol (OR =1.20, 95% CI: 0.98-1.46), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (OR =1.74, 95% CI: 1.19-2.56), fasting blood glucose (OR =1.19, 95% CI: 1.13-1.26), and hypertension (OR =1.25, 95% CI: 1.07-1.47), and the overall effect test results were statistically significant. Sensitivity analysis results show that the random effect model is used for meta-analysis of all Meta, and the combined OR is 1.10, and the 95% CI is (1.05, 1.15). DISCUSSION: The occurrence of DR was related to the course of diabetes, SBP, HbA1c, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, fasting blood glucose, and hypertension which provided a more intuitive and comprehensive scientific basis for the prevention and treatment of DR.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".