Sex Differences in the Level of Homocysteine in Alzheimer’s Disease and Parkinson’s Disease Patients: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although recent studies suggest homocysteine (Hcy) is an independent risk factor for neurodegenerative disorders, little is known about sex differences in the levels of Hcy. In this study, we conducted a comparative meta-analysis to investigate sex differences in the levels of Hcy in both Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients. Reports of Hcy stratified by sex in both AD and PD patients were obtained from electronic databases. From the initial 1595 records, 921 were assessed for eligibility, of which 16 sufficiently reported sex differences. Standardized mean difference (SMDs) using random effects together with tests of heterogeneity and quality assessment were applied in this meta-analysis. Data from 3082 diagnosed patients (1162 males and 1920 females) were included. There were statistically significant differences in the levels of Hcy between sexes in AD and PD patients, with an SMD of 0.291 [0.17, 0.41], p < 0.05, 95% CI, with higher Hcy levels detected in males. Subgroup comparisons did not find a statistically significant difference in the levels of Hcy between AD and PD patients. The overall risk of bias for the analyzed studies was low, with some moderate risk of bias across select domains. This meta-analysis determined that compared to females, males with either AD or PD have higher levels of Hcy. These findings suggest that Hcy could be a useful biomarker for predicting neurodegenerative diseases in males; however, further studies are needed to confirm the clinical utility of this suggestion.
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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.066 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".