MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383293060

Blood and CSF Homocysteine Levels in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of Case–Control Studies

2022· article· en· W4383293060 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Li Zhang, Xiaoping Xie, Yan Sun, Feng Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueSHILAP Revista de lepidopterología · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGDF15 and Related Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisMeta-regressionHomocysteineRegression analysisMedicineInternal medicineStatisticsMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ling Zhang1 *, Xinhua Xie2 *, Yangyan Sun1 *, Futao Zhou1 1School of Basic Medicine, Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, People’s Republic of China; 2Key Laboratory of Prevention and Treatment of Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Diseases of Ministry of Education, Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, People’s Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Futao Zhou, School of Basic Medicine, Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, Jiangxi Province, 341000, People’s Republic of China, Email zhft522@163.comObjective: Hyperhomocysteinemia (HHcy), as an important risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), would aggravate cognitive dysfunction. This study aimed to investigate whether and to what degree the homocysteine (Hcy) levels in blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) were elevated in AD patients compared with healthy controls and to explore the factors related to the elevated Hcy levels in AD patients.Methods: PubMed and Embase databases were searched to identify eligible studies, and study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Ratio of mean (RoM) Hcy concentrations was used as a measure of fold-change between AD patients and healthy control subjects.Results: We identified 35 eligible studies, consisting a total of 2172 patients with AD and 2289 healthy controls. The pooled results showed that patients with AD had a significantly higher blood level of Hcy (RoM, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.25– 1.40; p< 0.001) than controls did, with large heterogeneity across studies (I2=81.4%, p< 0.001). Hcy level in CSF did not differ significantly between patients with AD than controls (RoM, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.90– 1.39, p=0.293; I2=69.4%, p=0.02). A random effects meta-regression analysis revealed that there was an inverse correlation between the blood levels of Hcy and folate (p=0.006). There was no link found between the blood levels of vitamin B12, or the Mini-Mental Status Examination scores reflecting the degree of cognitive impairment, and blood levels of Hcy.Conclusion: Regardless of dementia severity, there is an approximate one-third increase in blood Hcy in AD patients, which is robustly associated with a decreased level of blood folate in AD, but not with that of blood vitamin B12 nor the degree of dementia. Future investigation on the cause-and-effect link between Hcy and folate is warranted to clarify this issue.Keywords: homocysteine, Alzheimer’s disease, meta-regression

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.050
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSHILAP Revista de lepidopterologíaSame topicGDF15 and Related BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207