ArticleHeliyon2024
Association of
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: the Methods: This case-control study comprised 120 AD-diagnosed patients and 120 healthy individuals without any prior family history of AD. The patient and control groups were matched for major demographic and health characteristics. Genotyping was performed by amplification refractory mutation system-polymerase chain reaction (ARMS-PCR). Results: All patients included in this study were assessed by an experienced neurologist to exclude cases with other forms of dementia based on a brain computed tomography scan and other clinical findings. There were no significant differences in demographic and health characteristics including sex, diabetes, blood pressure, and cigarette smoking status between case and control groups (p > 0.05). However, the age difference appeared significant. Both SNPs were significantly associated with the risk of AD in our study population. The rs3736187 (T > C, 3:155168489) was strongly associated with AD risk under the log-additive model (OR = 1.67, CI = 1.18-2.37, p-value = 0.003). The rs6797911 (T > A, 3:155144601) also showed a significant association with AD risk under the dominant model (TT vs. TA and AA, OR = 3.37, CI = 1.86-6.1, p-value <0.001). Conclusion: There is a strong association between
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.