MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771510385 · doi:10.1186/s12890-017-0549-5

Prevalence and etiologies of pulmonary hypertension in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017· review· en· W2771510385 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pulmonary Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisConfidence intervalPublication biasInternal medicineEtiologyIncidence (geometry)Observational studyOdds ratioSystematic reviewEpidemiologyMEDLINEPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the recent increasing worldwide attention towards pulmonary hypertension (PH), its epidemiology remains poorly described in Africa. Accordingly, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of PH prevalence, incidence and etiologies in Africa. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, African Journals Online, and Africa Index Medicus. Published observational studies until September 20, 2017, including adult participants residing in Africa were considered. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed included studies for methodological quality, and extracted data. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was evaluated by the χ 2 test on Cochrane’s Q statistic which is quantified by I2 values. Using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, we considered a score of 0–4, 5–7, and 8–10 as indicative of high, moderate, and low risk of bias in included studies, respectively. Of 1611 entries, 25 studies were retained. Twelve (48%), seven (28%), and six (24%) papers had respectively a low, moderate and high risk of bias. The prevalence of PH widely varied across different populations: 9.8% (95% confidence interval: 3.2–19.3; I2 = 99.4%; 6 studies) in 11,163 people presenting with cardiac complaints; 10.6% (4.3–19.1; I2 = 90.3%; 4 studies) in 937 HIV-infected people; 32.9% (17.6–50.4; I2 = 97.2%; 3 studies) in 2077 patients with heart failure; 23.2% (15.2–32.2; I2 = 59.4%; 3 studies) in 248 patients on hemodialysis; 12.9% (11.8–14.0; I2 = 79.7%; 2 studies) in 3750 patients with rheumatic heart disease; 36.9% (29.7–44.3; I2 = 79.7; 2 studies) in 79 patients with sickle cell disease; 62.7% (49.0–74.7; 1 study) in 51 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; 25.4% (16.3–37.3; 1 study) in 63 patients with systemic lupus erythematous; 68.7% (62.8–74.1; 1 study) in 259 patients with cardiac surgery; and 7.4% (4.6–11.9; 1 study) in 202 patients with systemic sclerosis. No study reported PH incidence. From one international study (n = 209), PH etiologies were: left heart disease (68.9%), pulmonary arterial hypertension (15.8%), lung disease and/or hypoxia (12.0%), chronic thromboembolic PH (1.9%) and unclear/multifactorial PH (15.8%). The prevalence of PH is relatively high in some populations in Africa, perhaps mainly driven by left heart diseases, highlighting the need for context-specific interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.328
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.083 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it