Maternal ApoE genotype and risk of recurrent pregnancy loss: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In order to clarify the role of the maternal apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotype and the risk of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), we herein performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to reevaluate the evidence on this association. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed, Web of Knowledge and the Cochrane library up to September 2022. Methodological study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the credibility of significant pooled odds ratios (ORs) was estimated by the false positive report probability and the Bayesian false discovery probability. RESULTS: Twelve studies published from 2009 to 2022 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In the overall analysis, the ε4 allele was found to confer an increased risk of RPL compared to the ε3 allele (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.00-2.55, p = 0.049) and women carrying the ApoE ε4 allele displayed a higher risk of RPL compared with those carrying the ε2 and ε3 alleles (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.06-2.87, p = 0.028). Subgroup analysis based on subjects' ethnicity revealed that these associations were restricted to the Asian population (ε4 allele vs. ε3 allele, OR 5.93, 95% CI 1.79-19.61, p = 0.004; ε4 allele carriers vs. carriers of ε2 and ε3 alleles, OR 8.42, 95% CI 1.47-48.12, p = 0.017). None of the associations detected were found to be noteworthy under false positive report probability or Bayesian false discovery probability at a prior probability of 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: This updated meta-analysis highlights an association between maternal ApoE genotype and RPL risk in Asians, but not in Caucasians. Further case-control studies are warranted in women of Asian ancestry to exclude the possibility of false-positive findings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".