Ramadan fasting is not usually associated with the risk of cardiovascular events: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over one billion Muslims worldwide fast during the month of Ramadan. Ramadan fasting brings about some changes in the daily lives of practicing Muslims, especially in their diet and sleep patterns, which are associated with the risk of cardiovascular diseases. Over the years, many original studies have made the effort to identify the possible impact of the Ramadan fast on cardiovascular diseases. This systematic review and meta-analysis is an attempt to present the summary of key findings from those articles and an appraisal of selected literature. A systematic search using keywords of ";Ramadan fasting" and ";cardiovascular diseases" was conducted in primary research article and gray-literature repositories, in combination with hand searching and snow balling. Fifteen studies were finally selected for data extraction on the outcomes of stroke, myocardial infarction, and congestive heart failure. The analysis revealed that the incidence of cardiovascular events during the Ramadan fast was similar to the nonfasting period. Ramadan fast is not associated with any change in incidence of acute cardiovascular disease.
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 | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".