ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2025
Can mac-2 binding protein glycosylation isomer serve as a biomarker for predicting pulmonary arterial pressure and pulmonary hypertension in systemic sclerosis?
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: This study aimed to explore the role of Mac-2 binding protein glycosylation isomer (M2BPGi) serum levels as a biomarker that could contribute to understanding organ involvement and the overall disease process in systemic sclerosis (SSc). Materials and methods: The cross-sectional study examined 108 patients with SSc. Seventy-two people were included in the control group. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients, laboratory and radiological findings, pulmonary function tests and echocardiography results, and presence of pulmonary hypertension (PHT) based on echocardiographic evaluation were recorded. Venous blood samples of 5 mL were collected from individuals. Human M2BPGi levels in the samples were measured using a specific kit. Results: There was no significant difference between the M2BPGi levels in the patient (median = 4749.69 pg/mL, mean = 5351.75 ± 2483.97) and the control group (median = 4638.07, mean = 4611.86 ± 1333.15) (p = 0.071). Considering pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP) status, the average M2BPGi level in the normal PAP group was 5898.15 ± 2555.61 pg/mL, while it was 4258.96 ± 1973.08 pg/mL in the increased PAP group. The difference between these groups was statistically significant (p: 0.021). Examining PHT status, the average M2BPGi level was 5942.01 ± 2579.14 pg/mL in the group without PHT, decreasing to 4264.44 ± 1917.63 pg/mL in the group with PHT. There is a significant relationship regarding PHT (p: 0.016). Conclusion: This study explores the relationship between M2BPGi and systemic involvements in SSc. It demonstrates a significant relationship between M2BPGi and PAP and PHT, suggesting that M2BPGi might serve as a noninvasive biomarker for predicting both PAP and PHT.
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.