Hyperuricemia and the Prognosis of Hypertensive Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of hyperuricemia in patients with established hypertension by systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were searched through January 2015. Seventeen cohort studies were included and their methodological quality was moderate to high, with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scores ranging from 6 to 9. Random-effects model meta-analyses showed that in terms of adjusted categorical data, hyperuricemia significantly correlated with cardiovascular diseases in hypertensive patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-2.03), all-cause mortality (HR, 1.12; 95%CI, 1.02-1.23), and diabetes (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.02-3.30) but not with stroke (HR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.57-1.27); while, in terms of adjusted continuous data, the corresponding pooled HRs were 1.17 (95% CI, 1.07-1.27), 1.05 (95% CI, 0.98-1.13), 1.28 (95% CI, 1.18-1.38), and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.98-1.16), respectively. The findings of our meta-analysis suggest that hyperuricemia could slightly increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes in patients with hypertension.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.030 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it