Association of ADIPOQ Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) with Obesity Risk in Different Populations: A Systematic Review and Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Thirty-two single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are commonly found in ADIPOQ. APN levels are decreased in obesity, and SNPs of the ADIPOQ gene affecting APN have varying associations with the development of obesity in different populations. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the association of SNPs in ADIPOQ with the risk of obesity development in various populations. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist date up to Feb 2023. We used the Newcastle–Ottawa scale to find out if a study fit the main criteria for submission and to assess the data quality of the articles included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated via Review Manager (RM) V.5.4 to estimate the connection between ADIPOQ polymorphic qualities of a gene and the risk of developing obesity. Results: The present study analysed the association between ADIPOQ polymorphisms (rs1501299, rs2241766, rs266729, rs822393, and rs822396) and obesity risk and suggested that APN is partially responsible for the emergence of obesity and increases its risk. Conclusion: It is important to take into account several limitations of this meta-analysis when evaluating the findings. First off, even though we looked through numerous databases for all relevant papers, there is a chance we overlooked some. Our capacity to arrive at more firm conclusions was further hampered by the small number of papers that made up our meta-analysis. The most current data, however, are presented in this study since it used newly published data to perform a meta-analysis and evaluate the relationship between ADIPOQ polymorphisms and obesity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".