ASSOCIATION OF RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSION WITH CARDIOVASCULAR EVENTS AND MORTALITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Previous studies examining the association of retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and cardiovascular events have been inconsistent and have mostly focused on stroke and myocardial infarction. The goal of this study is to use meta-analysis to examine the available evidence examining the association of RVO with incident cardiovascular events and mortality. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of all longitudinal cohort studies published in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to April 7, 2018, that evaluated the association of baseline RVO and incident cardiovascular events and/or mortality, that provided multivariate-adjusted risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and that had average follow-up ≥1 year. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used to assess study quality. Multivariate-adjusted risk estimates with 95% CI along with study characteristics were extracted from each study, and pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CI were generated using a random-effects model with inverse-variance weighting to account for heterogeneity. Main outcomes were incident stroke (fatal or nonfatal), myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. Results: Fifteen cohort studies with a total of 474,466 patients (60,069 with RVO and 414,397 without RVO) were included. Each study had Newcastle–Ottawa scale score ≥6, indicating moderate-to-high quality. Retinal vein occlusion was associated with increased risk of stroke (RR = 1.45; 95% CI, 1.31–1.60), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.17–1.37), heart failure (RR = 1.53; 95% CI, 1.22–1.92), peripheral arterial disease (RR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.09–1.46), and all-cause mortality (RR = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.02–1.81), but was not associated with increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR = 1.78; 95% CI, 0.70–4.48). Conclusion: This review suggests patients with RVO have an increased risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. More studies are needed to determine the highest risk periods for cardiovascular events and mortality after RVO and whether immediate cardiovascular evaluation and intervention will improve outcomes.
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".