Differential Metabolites in Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Many studies have attempted to utilize metabolomic approaches to explore potential biomarkers for the early detection of osteoarthritis (OA), but consistent and high-level evidence is still lacking. In this study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of differential small molecule metabolites between OA patients and healthy individuals to screen promising candidates from a large number of samples with the aim of informing future prospective studies. (2) Methods: We searched the EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Wan Fang Data, VIP Date, and CNKI up to 11 August 2022, and selected relevant records based on inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. We performed qualitative synthesis by counting the frequencies of changing directions and conducted meta-analyses using the random effects model and the fixed-effects model to calculate the mean difference and 95% confidence interval. (3) Results: A total of 3798 records were identified and 13 studies with 495 participants were included. In the 13 studies, 132 kinds of small molecule differential metabolites were extracted, 58 increased, 57 decreased and 17 had direction conflicts. Among them, 37 metabolites appeared more than twice. The results of meta-analyses among four studies showed that three metabolites increased, and eight metabolites decreased compared to healthy controls (HC). (4) Conclusions: The main differential metabolites between OA and healthy subjects were amino acids (AAs) and their derivatives, including tryptophan, lysine, leucine, proline, phenylalanine, glutamine, dimethylglycine, citrulline, asparagine, acetylcarnitine and creatinine (muscle metabolic products), which could be potential biomarkers for predicting OA.
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 | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".