Association of host antimicrobial peptides with type II diabetes mellitus complications: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background This systematic review aims to review and assess the importance and relationship between host defence antimicrobial peptides with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) complications and the correlation of their expression with hyperglycaemic status. Main body The systematic search included three electronic databases (PMC, PubMed, and Google Scholar) that were searched from July to November 2023. After identifying and screening the research articles, eleven studies fulfilled the selection criteria and were included (six case–control and five cross-sectional studies). The Newcastle Ottawa Scale assessed the selected studies’ quality. Most studies indicated a correlation between certain types of AMPs and diabetic complications. Conclusion Hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) affects the expression of certain types of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) which have a dual function (antibacterial and modulation of immune response) that may enhance inflammation which may correlate with the development of long-term complications, increased susceptibility to bacterial infection, and impaired wound healing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".