The effect of circulating adiponectin levels on incident gestational diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta‑analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To quantitatively synthesize evidence from prospective observational studies regarding the mean levels of circulating adiponectin in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and the association between adiponectin levels and GDM risk. PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from their inception until November 8th, 2022, for nested case-control studies and cohort studies. Random-effect models were applied to the synthesized effect sizes. The difference in circulating adiponectin levels between the GDM and control groups was measured using the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The relationship between circulating adiponectin levels and GDM risk was examined using the combined odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the study continent, GDM risk in the study population, study design, gestational weeks of circulating adiponectin detection, GDM diagnostic criteria, and study quality. Sensitivity and cumulative analyses were performed to evaluate the stability of the meta-analysis. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots and Egger’s test. The 28 studies included 13 cohort studies and 15 nested case-control studies, containing 12,256 pregnant women in total. The mean adiponectin level in GDM patients was significantly lower than in controls (SMD = −1.514, 95% CI = −2.400 to −0.628, p = .001, I2 = 99%). The risk of GDM was significantly decreased among pregnant women with increasing levels of circulating adiponectin (OR = 0.368, 95% CI = 0.271–0.500, p < .001, I2=83%). There were no significant differences between the subgroups. Our findings indicate that increasing circulating adiponectin levels were inversely associated with the risk of GDM. Given the inherent heterogeneity and publication bias of the included studies, further well-designed large-scale prospective cohort or intervention studies are needed to confirm our finding. Increasing circulating adiponectin levels in the first to the second trimester could decrease the risk of incident GDM.
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 | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 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".