Association of CTLA-4 gene polymorphisms and alopecia areata: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To provide evidence of the association between CLTA-4 gene polymorphisms and alopecia areata (AA). PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, Wanfang, and CNKI databases were searched until 30 April 2021. The selection was completed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The study quality assessment was based on Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The assessment of the association was measured by ORs and 95%CIs. Nine studies, containing 2858 AA cases and 5444 disease-free control subjects were included. For rs231775 polymorphism, no significant association with AA was found, which was A <i>vs.</i> a, OR = 1.02 [0.81, 1.30], <i>p</i> = 0.85; AA <i>vs.</i> aa, OR = 1.26 [0.81, 1.97], <i>p</i> = 0.31; Aa <i>vs.</i> aa, OR = 1.04 [0.54, 2.01], <i>p</i> = 0.91; AA + Aa <i>vs.</i> aa, OR = 1.04 [0.71, 1.53], <i>p</i> = 0.82; AA <i>vs.</i> Aa + aa, OR = 1.31 [0.97, 1.78], <i>p</i> = 0.08. For rs3087243 polymorphism, also no significant association was found, which was A <i>vs.</i> a, OR = 0.93 [0.78, 1.11]; <i>p</i> = 0.40, AA <i>vs.</i> aa, OR = 0.68 [0.44, 1.06]; <i>p</i> = 0.09; Aa <i>vs.</i> aa, OR = 0.87 [0.45, 1.68], <i>p</i> = 0.68; AA + Aa <i>vs.</i> aa, OR = 0.93 [0.68, 1.28], <i>p</i> = 0.66; AA <i>vs.</i> Aa + aa, OR = 0.78 [0.34, 1.81], <i>p</i> = 0.57. For rs231726 polymorphism, a significant correlation was found, which was A <i>vs.</i> a, OR = 0.76 [0.70, 0.82], <i>p</i> < 0.05. A significant correlation between CTLA-4 rs231726 polymorphism and AA susceptibility was found, but no significant association of CTLA-4 gene rs231775 and rs3087243 polymorphisms and AA susceptibility was found.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 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".