Association between the null polymorphisms of GSTT1 and GSTM1 and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between the null polymorphisms of the GSTT1 and GSTM1 genes and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus has been previously investigated. However, these scattered evidence remained controversial. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to synthesize previous findings and statistically estimate whether these polymorphic variants are associated with the risk of this common pregnancy complication. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Clarivate Web of Science, Elsevier Scopus, Cochrane Library, and EBSCOhost (from inception to February 28, 2025), using a predefined search strategy. The methodological quality of each study was assessed by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were estimated to measure the effect size. In addition, heterogeneity, sensitivity, and publication bias were also examined. All statistical tests were performed using the R language (version 4.4.2) and STATA software (version 14.2). This study followed the PRISMA 2020 statement, and the protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420250621255). RESULTS: For the deletion polymorphism of GSTT1, seven studies with 1012 cases and 1081 controls were integrated into the pooled estimation. For the null variant of GSTM1, seven datasets with 1012 diabetic and 1081 control individuals were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled estimates showed statistical significance for the null polymorphisms of GSTT1 (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.08–1.89, P = 0.01) and GSTM1 (OR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.68–2.39, P < 0.01). The symmetric funnel plot shape and statistical tests of publication bias suggested no substantial file drawer problem. However, the pooled estimates of the GSTT1 null polymorphism lost statistical significance in the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis and Galbraith plot-guided heterogeneity adjustment. CONCLUSION: The results suggested that the null polymorphisms of GSTT1 and GSTM1 may be associated with an increased risk of gestational diabetes mellitus. Notably, the association for the GSTT1 null polymorphism was not robust and warrants further confirmation. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".