Association between <i>Vitamin D receptor (VDR)</i> gene polymorphisms and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) are currently one of the major causes of pregnancy-related maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality worldwide. Recent studies provide evidence that maternal Vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene polymorphisms probably play a key role by affecting the biological function of vitamin D in some adverse pregnancy outcomes, while the relationship between the VDR gene polymorphisms and the risk of HDP remains controversial in current studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the association of the VDR gene polymorphisms with HDP susceptibility. Methods This meta-analysis follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and a protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022344383) before commencing this review. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched until January 21, 2023. Case-control and cohort studies that reported the association of the VDR gene polymorphisms with HDP were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-randomized studies. The odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the five models (allele model, dominant model, recessive model, homozygous model, heterozygous model) were pooled respectively, and subgroup analysis was performed based on ethnicity. Results A total of ten studies were included. The VDR gene ApaI polymorphism was associated with HDP susceptibility in the dominant model (OR: 1.38; 95% CI [1.07–1.79]; P = 0.014) and the heterozygote model (OR: 1.48; 95% CI [1.12–1.95]; P = 0.006). In subgroup analysis, the heterozygote model (OR: 2.06; 95% CI [1.21–3.52]; P = 0.008) of the ApaI polymorphism was associated with HDP in Asians, but not in Caucasians. Conclusion The VDR gene ApaI polymorphism may be associated with HDP susceptibility. Insufficient evidence to support the existence of ethnic differences in this association.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".