Hyperuricemia and the Prognosis of Hypertensive Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".