Risk of aortic aneurysm in patients with psoriasis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of cohort studies
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
Abstract Background The association between psoriasis and the risk of aortic aneurysm is still unclear. Hypothesis Patients with psoriasis have a higher risk of aortic aneurysm than healthy individuals. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from inception to 20 July 2019 were searched. We included cohort studies if they reported estimate effects on the risk of aortic aneurysm in patient with psoriasis. We used Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale to evaluate methodology quality of eligible studies. Random‐effect meta‐analyses were used to estimate the overall risk. Subgroup analyses were conducted for analysis of influencing factors. Results After a view of 2207 citations, we included three large cohort studies enrolling 5 706 525 participants in this systematic review. Psoriasis patients have an increased risk of development of aortic aneurysm (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.30, 95%confidence intervals [CI], 1.10‐1.55, I 2 = 53.1%). The risk is not statistically different between patients with severe psoriasis (HR, 1.51, 95%CI, 1.04‐2.19, I 2 = 40.2%) and patients with mild psoriasis (HR, 1.24, 95%CI, 1.08‐1.42, I 2 = 24.1%). The risk was not statistically increased in female patients (HR, 1.55, 95%CI, 0.65‐3.72), patients ≥50 years old (HR, 4.05, 95%CI, 0.69‐23.75, I 2 = 97.3%), and patients with diabetes (HR, 0.97, 95%CI, 0.83‐1.14). Conclusions Current evidence from observational studies suggests that psoriasis increases the risk of aortic aneurysm, and screening of aortic aneurysm might be considered among psoriasis 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.036 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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