Metformin prescription and aortic aneurysm: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To assess the association of metformin prescription with the risk of aortic aneurysm, aortic aneurysm events and the enlargement of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus for epidemiological studies up to November 2018. We included observational studies which evaluated the association of metformin prescription with the risk of aortic aneurysm disease, and we also included studies involving progression and enlargement of AAA. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of included studies. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted in line with the between-study heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses were performed to identify the source of heterogeneity. Results Eight studies enrolling 29 587 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. We found that metformin prescription could significantly limit the enlargement of aortic aneurysm (weighted mean difference: −0.83 mm/year, 95% CI −1.38 to −0.28, I2=89.6%) among patients with AAA. Metformin prescription status may be associated with a decreased risk of aortic aneurysm and aortic aneurysm events. Conclusions According to the available epidemiological evidence, metformin prescription could limit the expansion of AAA among patients with this disease, and may be involved with a lower incidence of aortic aneurysm and aortic aneurysm events. Randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm whether metformin could reduce the enlargement of AAA in patients with or without diabetes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".