The association between hyperuricemia and coronary artery calcification development: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hyperuricemia coincides with coronary artery calcification (CAC) development, but the role of serum uric acid (SUA) as a risk factor for CAC remains unclear. The objective of this study was to gain an insight into the association between SUA and CAC in adults by performing a meta-analysis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and EBSCO (CINAHL) were searched for relevant observational studies published until 2 June 2019. Studies were included only if they reported data on CAC presence (Agatston score > 0) or progression related to hyperuricemia in subclinical adult patients. The pooled estimates of crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to evaluate the association between CAC presence or progression and hyperuricemia. A total of 11 studies were identified involving 11 108 adults. The pooled OR based on the frequency of CAC presence showed that patients in the high SUA group had 1.806-fold risk for developing CAC (95% CI: 1.491-2.186) under the minimal threshold of hyperuricemia (more than 6 mg/dL or 357 μmoL/L). When SUA levels were analyzed as categorical variables, the pooled estimate of adjusted ORs was 1.48 (95% CI: 1.23-1.79) for CAC presence. Additionally, for each increase of 1 mg/dL of SUA level, the risk of CAC progression was increased by 31% (95% CI: 1.15-1.49) with an average follow-up duration ranged from 4.6 to 6.1 years. Hyperuricemia is closely associated with increased risk of CAC development and CAC progression in asymptomatic patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it