ArticleInternational journal of women's health2025
Molecular Variants in
Article in International journal of women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) is defined as impaired glucose intolerance resulting in hyperglycemia. SIRT1 deficiency and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were also related to diabetes. No documented studies were carried out between GDM and Objective: This study was designed to explore the molecular association carried out between GDM women and Methods/Design: Serum samples were used for studying biochemical parameters, genotyping and Sanger sequencings for rs4746720 and rs10823112 SNPs. Statistical analysis was carried out between GDM and non-GDM women for anthropometric, biochemical and molecular data. Results: A total of 120 GDM and 120 non-GDM women were recruited based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Different forms of glucose values have confirmed the statistical association levels between GDM and non-GDM women (p < 0.05). Penalized logistic regression analysis showed the positive association with FBG, OGTT-2hr and HDLc levels (p < 0.05) in GDM women. The rs4746720 SNP was associated with GDM (p = 0.01). ANOVA analysis has confirmed the strong association with FBG (p = 0.002), PPBG (p = 0.0001) and HDLc (p = 0.0003) levels in rs4746720 SNP; while in rs10823112 SNP, both PPBG (p = 0.0001) and HDLc (p = 0.01) were associated. Linkage disequilibrium and GMDR analysis showed significant associations (p < 0.05). Conclusion: This study confirms rs4746720 SNP and glucose levels played a role in this study.
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.