Asprosin Levels in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) significantly affects health and healthcare costs due to chronic kidney disease complications. Given asprosin's potential as a biomarker for disease progression, we conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis on its relationship with DKD in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Standard mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and Fisher's Z transformation were used to examine the relationship between asprosin and DKD. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and its version for cross-sectional studies. Heterogeneity (I² > 50%) was analyzed with a random-effects model. Results: Six studies (n = 1340) were included. Meta-analysis results indicated that T2DM patients with DKD (micro/macroalbuminuria) had significantly higher circulating asprosin levels than normoalbuminuric T2DM patients (SMD: 1.5, 95% CI: 0.69-2.32, p = 0.0003). Meta-analysis of correlation revealed a positive association of asprosin with urinary albumin excretion ratio (UACR) (Fisher's Z = 0.4; 95% CI: 0.240-0.554, p < 0.001) and body mass index (BMI) (Fisher's Z = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.036-0.301, p = 0.013), and a negative association with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Fisher's Z = -0.35; 95% CI: -0.471 to -0.239, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Asprosin is elevated in T2DM patients with pre-DKD (early stage DKD) and DKD and correlates with key markers of disease severity. Additional research is required to better understand the pathophysiological mechanisms of asprosin and its role in DKD.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 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".