Relationship between CRP gene polymorphisms and ischemic stroke risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ischemic stroke (IS), usually caused due to an abrupt blockage of an artery, is the leading cause of disability and the second leading cause of death worldwide. The association of the C-reactive protein (CRP) gene (s3093059 T/C and rs1205 C/T) polymorphisms and IS susceptibility has been widely studied, but the results remain inconsistent. Our study aimed to assess the association between CRP gene (s3093059 T/C and rs1205 C/T) polymorphisms and IS risk. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WanFang databases were searched up to April 2022 to identify eligible studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) score was calculated to assess study quality. The odd ratios (ORs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to assess the association between CRP gene (rs3093059 T/C and rs1205 C/T) polymorphisms and IS risk. Eighteen case-control studies with 6339 cases and 29580 controls were identified. We found that CRP (s3093059 T/C and rs1205 C/T) polymorphism was not significantly associated with the risk of IS in any genetic model (recessive model: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79-1.26; OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90-1.25). When stratified analysis by country, genotype method, source of controls, and NOS score, still no statistically significant association was found. Our study indicated that the CRP (rs3093059 T/C and rs1205 C/T) polymorphisms were not associated with the susceptibility to IS.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 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".