ArticleF1000Research2015
Dermatoglyphic meta-analysis indicates early epigenetic outcomes & possible implications on genomic zygosity in type-2 diabetes.
Article in F1000Research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dermatoglyphics as a Risk Indicator for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries in Futsal Athletes.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- Canada's Colonial Genocide of Indigenous Peoples: A Review of the Psychosocial and Neurobiological Processes Linking Trauma and Intergenerational Outcomes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Association between gestational period and obesity in children with the use of dermatoglyphic traits: A preliminary study.PloS one · 2021Article
- Dermatoglyphical impressions are different between children and adolescents with normal weight, overweight and obesity: a cross-sectional study.F1000Research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDermatoglyphic studies, particularly those arising from the Dutch Hunger Winter Families Cohort, indicate an involvement of prenatal epigenetic insults in type-2 diabetes. However, the exact orchestration of this association is not fully understood. Herein is described a meta-analysis performed based on a belief that such an approach could shed some light as to the role of genetic & epigenetic influences in the etiology of type-2 diabetes. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsThe study incorporated reports identified from PubMed, Medline, & Google Scholar databases for eligible case-control studies that assessed dermatoglyphics in type-2 diabetes cases relative to controls. Over 44,000 fingerprints & 2300 palm prints from around 4400 individuals were included in the analysis. Decreased loops patterns [OR= 0.76; 95% CI= (0.59, 0.98)], increased non-loop patterns [OR= 1.31; 95% CI= (1.02, 1.68)], and reduced absolute finger ridge counts [OR= -0.19; 95% CI= (-0.33, -0.04)] were significant findings among the diabetic group. These results are indicative of mild developmental deviances, with epigenetic insults significantly linked to early gestation wherein critical events &signaling pathways of the endocrine pancreas development are witnessed. Further, the increased loop patterns with decreased non-loop patterns were deemed as possible indicators of decreased genomic heterozygosity with concurrently increased homozygosity in the diabetic group, linked to reduced buffering capacities during prenatal development.
conclusionsEpigenetic insults primarily during the 1
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.