Correlation between TCF7L2 and CAPN10 gene polymorphisms and gestational diabetes mellitus in different geographical regions: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The association between TCF7L2 and CAPN10 gene polymorphisms and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has been explored in diverse populations across different geographical regions. Yet, most of these studies have been confined to a limited number of loci, resulting in inconsistent findings. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive review of published literature to identify studies examining the relationship between TCF7L2 and CAPN10 gene polymorphisms and the incidence of GDM in various populations. We specifically focused on five loci that were extensively reported in a large number of publications and performed a meta-analysis. Methods We prioritized the selection of SNPs with well-documented correlations established in existing literature on GDM. We searched eight Chinese and English databases: Cochrane, Elton B. Stephens. Company (EBSCO), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and China Science and Technology Journal Database and retrieved all relevant articles published between the inception of the database and July 2022. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the selected articles, and the odds ratio (OR) was used as the combined effect size index to determine the association between genotypes, alleles, and GDM using different genetic models. Heterogeneity between the studies was quantified and the I2 value calculated. Due to large heterogeneities between different ethnic groups, subgroup analysis was used to explore the correlation between genetic polymorphisms and the incidence of GDM in the different populations. The stability of the results was assessed using sensitivity analysis. Begg’s and Egger’s tests were used to assess publication bias. Results A total of 39 articles reporting data on 8,795 cases and 16,290 controls were included in the analysis. The frequency of the rs7901695 genotype was statistically significant between cases and controls in the European population (OR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.65–0.86) and the American population (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.48–0.77). The frequencies of rs12255372, rs7901695, rs290487, and rs2975760 alleles were also considerably different between the cases and controls in the populations analyzed. Conclusions rs7903146, rs12255372, rs7901695, rs290487, and rs2975760 were associated with the incidence of GDM in different populations.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".