Abstract P541: High Allostatic Load is Associated With Increased Risk of All-cause Mortality - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Allostatic load (AL) is a measure of physiological damage from chronic stress, quantified using a variety of neuroendocrine, metabolic, cardiovascular, and immune biomarkers. While AL has been associated with several mortality risk factors (e.g., metabolic disorders, inflammation, cardiovascular disease (CVD), frailty), to date, no meta-analyses have examined the relationship between AL and mortality. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the relationship between AL and mortality (CVD and all-cause). Hypothesis: Higher AL (i.e., increased dysregulation) will be associated with an increased risk of all-cause and CVD mortality. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guided this review. Two databases (PubMed and EMBASE) were searched in Feb 2019 with the terms: ((mortality) OR survival) AND ((allostatic load) OR allostasis); references of included studies were also screened. Included studies met the a priori inclusion criteria (i.e. compared mortality (all-cause and/or CVD) in high vs. low AL (defined by study) in adults). Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle Ottawa Criteria. Findings were qualitatively synthesized then the meta-analysis was completed in Review Manager 5.3. Subgroups were examined by design and sample age. Results: Database searches and references identified 400 studies; after removing duplicates, 266 abstracts were screened and 32 full texts were reviewed. The systematic review included 12 observational studies (2001-18) examining all-cause mortality; half were also included in meta-analyses. Of the 12 included studies, most examined CVD mortality (n=7), were longitudinal (n=7), from the US (n=7), and had a balanced sex distribution. In the qualitative review, high AL was consistently associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (n=11 of 12 studies, hazard ratio (HR) range=1.13-2.98), however, the association was less consistent for CVD mortality (n=4 of 7 studies, HR=1.12-3.06). In meta-analyses, high AL was associated with increased risk of all-cause (HR= 1.46 [1.24, 1.72], n=6) and CVD mortality (HR= 1.18 [1.02, 1.38], n=4). High AL was associated with all-cause mortality in subgroup analyses stratified by design (cross-sectional HR=1.44 [1.14, 1.81], n=3; longitudinal HR=1.61 [1.11, 2.33], n=3) and sample age (older adults HR=1.17 [1.10, 1.24], n=3; all adults HR=1.94 [1.45, 2.60], n=3). Heterogeneity was high (I 2 =85-96%) in analyses except for the older adults subgroup (I 2 =18%). Study quality was good in 7 studies (including all studies in the meta-analysis), fair in 3 studies, and poor in 2 studies. Conclusions: In this review of relatively high-quality studies, high AL was associated with a 46% increased risk of all-cause mortality and may also be associated with CVD mortality. Thus, AL shows promise as a prognostic indicator for mortality.
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 | 0.015 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".