[Retracted] Association between Rosacea and Cardiovascular Diseases and Related Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Rosacea is a common inflammatory skin disorder. Several studies, but not all, have suggested a high prevalence of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) in rosacea patients. This study is aimed at investigating the association between rosacea and CVDs and related risk factors. Methods. We performed a literature search through PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases, from their respective inception to December 21, 2019. Two reviewers independently screened the articles, extracted data, and performed analysis, following the PRISMA guidelines. Odds ratios (OR) or standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for outcomes. The included studies’ quality was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results. The final meta‐analysis included ten studies. The pooled analysis found no association between rosacea prevalence and the incidence of CVDs (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.86‐1.10). Rosacea was found to be significantly associated with several risk factors for CVDs (OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.05‐1.31), including hypertension (OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.02‐1.35), dyslipidemia (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.00‐1.79), and metabolic syndrome (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.09‐2.72). However, no association was found between rosacea and diabetes mellitus (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.82‐1.16). Among the biological parameters, a significant association was found between rosacea and total cholesterol (SMD = 0.40; 95% CI = −0.00, 0.81; p < 0.05), low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (SMD = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.56; p < 0.05), and C‐reactive protein (CRP) (SMD = 0.25; 95% CI = 0.10, 0.41; p < 0.05). We found no association between rosacea and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (SMD = 0.00; 95% CI = −0.18, 0.18; p = 0.968) or triglycerides (SMD = 0.10; 95% CI = −0.04, 0.24; p = 0.171). Conclusions. Although no significant association was found between rosacea and CVDs, rosacea was found to be associated with several of related risk factors. Patients with rosacea should pay more attention to identifiable CVD risk factors, especially those related to inflammatory and metabolic disorders.
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 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.004 |
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".