Search strategies used in this study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div> Due to the inconsistent findings from various studies, the role of gene polymorphisms in the renin-angiotensin system in influencing the development of cardiomyopathy remains unclear. In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the findings regarding the impact of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) I/D, angiotensinogen (AGT) M235T, and angiotensin II Type 1 receptor (AGTR1) A1166C gene polymorphisms in patients with cardiomyopathy. We performed a comprehensive search of several electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, covering articles published from the time of database creation to April 17, 2023. Studies on the assessment of genetic polymorphisms in genes related to the renin-angiotensin system in relation to cardiomyopathy were included. The primary outcome was cardiomyopathy. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scale. The meta-analysis includes 19 studies with 4,052 cases and 5,592 controls. The ACE I/D polymorphisms were found to be associated with cardiomyopathy (allelic model D vs I: OR = 1.29, 95CI% = 1.08–1.52; dominant model DD+ID vs II: OR = 1.43, 95CI% = 1.01–2.02; recessive model DD vs ID+II: OR = 0.79, 95CI% = 0.64–0.98). AGT M235T polymorphism and cardiomyopathy were not significantly correlated (allelic model T vs M: OR = 1.26, 95CI% = 0.96–1.66; dominant model TT+MT vs MM: OR = 1.30, 95CI% = 0.98–1.73; recessive model TT vs MT+MM: OR = 0.63, 95CI% = 0.37–1.07). AGTR1 polymorphism and cardiomyopathy were not significantly associated under allelic model A vs C (OR = 0.69, 95CI% = 0.46–1.03) and recessive model AA vs CA+CC (OR = 0.89, 95CI% = 0.34–2.30), but under the dominant model AA+CA vs CC (OR = 0.51, 95CI% = 0.38–0.68). The current meta-analysis reveals that polymorphisms in ACE I/D may be a genetic risk factor for cardiomyopathy. There is an association between AGTR1 gene polymorphisms and risk of cardiomyopathy under the specific model. </div>
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.069 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".