Association of endogenous <scp>DHEA</scp>/<scp>DHEAS</scp> with coronary heart disease: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clinical significance of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and its sulphate (DHEAS) in coronary heart disease (CHD) has not been thoroughly elucidated to date. We performed a meta-analysis to clarify the correlations between endogenous DHEA(S) and CHD. We performed a literature search without language restriction up to August 10, 2017, and retrieved records from EMBase, PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI and WanFang databases to identify eligible cohort studies focused on the relation between DHEA(S) and CHD. A total of 26 studies were included in the systematic review and 14 case-control studies were included in the meta-analysis,which was performed using RevMan 5.1 and STATA 12. Subgroup analyses were used to discover possible sources of heterogeneity. Quality assessment was carried out using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Heterogeneity analyses were performed using meta-regression and tests for publication bias were performed. The overall average DHEAS diffusivity of CHD cases was significantly lower than that of controls with a summarized standard (std) mean difference of -0.23(95% CI, -0.45 to -0.01, P = .04). There was no association between DHEA concentration and CHD with a summarized mean difference of -0.07 (95% CI, -0.32 to 0.18, P = .59). No association was found between DHEAS concentration and arteriosclerosis patients with a summarized standard (std) mean difference of -0.46(95% CI, -0.96 to 0.04, P = .07). All of the results had a high degree of heterogeneity. The present study suggested that decreased DHEAS may be associated with coronary heart disease risk but not with arteriosclerosis. We did not find a significant association between DHEA and CHD risk.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".