OC-113 GENETIC AND BIOLOGIC RISK FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH HERNIA FORMATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim The aim of this systematic review is to identify genetic and biologic markers associated with abdominal hernia formation. Methods A systematic review, using PRIMSA-guidelines, searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and COCHRANE databases on 25AUG2022. All articles with qualitative or quantitative data regarding biologic factors of hernia formation were included. Review articles, editorials, and non-English articles were excluded. Data from articles were collected for analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. Results Of 5,946 initial studies, 77 were included: 17 incisional/ventral, 42 inguinal, 4 hiatal, 1 parastomal, and 13 multiple hernias. Five inguinal hernia studies identified 92 susceptible loci in regions of 66 genes involved largely in antigen processing/presentation and immune-response pathways after enrichment analysis. Three studies identified significant DNA sequence variants (DSV) of three additional genes. Among various biomarkers, eleven studies found increased MMP-2, with seven noting MMP-2 significantly higher in direct versus indirect. In incisional hernias, one study demonstrated 167 genes in skin and 7 genes in fascia with distinct gene-expression profiles associated with the activation of inflammatory response plasma proteins, regulation of immune response, and cell-adhesion. A separate genetic study identified 3 independent loci. Biomarkers were discussed in 15 studies, with inconclusive results. In both incisional/ventral and inguinal hernias, type I/type III collagen ratios were decreased. Data synthesis could not be completed for hiatal and parastomal hernias. Conclusion While there is reasonable consensus regarding the role of biologic risk factors in inguinal hernias, further research investigating genetic predisposition to incisional hernias is encouraged.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".