Significance of Umbilical Cord Leptin Profile during Pregnancy in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The literature provides limited evidence of cord blood leptin levels in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), with contradictory and inconsistent results with respect to their possible implications for maternal, perinatal, and future complications. Methods: MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched in order to investigate the state of evidence on the association of leptin profile in cord blood during perinatal complications in GDM. We critically assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analyses were performed, and heterogeneity and publication bias were analyzed. Results: sixteen primary-level studies were included, recruiting 573 GDM and 1118 control pregnant women. Cord blood leptin levels were significantly higher in GDM participants compared to controls (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.59, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.37 to 0.80, p < 0.001). All subgroups also maintained significant differences stratified by continents (Asia: SMD = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.45 to 1.37, p < 0.001; Europe: SMD = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.20 to 0.56, p < 0.001), analysis technique (ELISA: SMD = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.44 to 0.97, p < 0.001; RIA: SMD = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.11 to 0.49, p = 0.002), and sample source (plasma: SMD = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.33 to 1.09, p < 0.001; serum: SMD = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.34 to 0.77, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Cord blood leptin levels were significantly higher in GDM compared to controls. Further research is needed to clarify its role as a predictive biomarker of subsequent metabolic diseases in mothers with GDM and offspring.
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 | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".