Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Association Between Daily Niacin Intake and Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Glaucoma is a progressive optic neuropathy, characterised by a complex pathophysiology, with mitochondrial dysfunction playing a significant role in the cellular damage and apoptosis of ganglion cells. Niacin is a precursor to several molecules acting as coenzymes in the mitochondrial production of ATP, in DNA repair and in the reduction of reactive oxygen species. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of daily niacin intake on glaucoma. Methods: Case–control and cohort studies regarding niacin and glaucoma, indexed in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Scopus, were included. Other study methodologies, studies regarding niacin in other ocular disease or other nutrients in glaucoma were excluded. Bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (no. CRD42024578889). Results: Five case–control studies were included. In the pooled analysis, a significantly higher proportion of patients with high niacin consumption was found in the group without glaucoma compared to those with glaucoma as defined by ISGEO criteria (p-value < 0.00001; OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.55–0.79) or as defined by retinal imaging (p-value = 0.02; OR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.43–0.94). Conclusions: Daily dietary intake of niacin is significantly lower in patients with glaucoma compared to the general population. Given different average daily intakes of niacin in these populations, different glaucoma definitions and several confounding variables which weaken the associations, large sample, standardised randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm the potential benefits of niacin in glaucoma.
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 | 0.011 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".