Association between splenectomy and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Whether splenectomy increases the risk of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the association between splenectomy and CTEPH. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. Methods Two authors independently searched and extracted the data. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were used to assess the quality of the included studies, and each quality item was graded as low risk or high risk. A random-effects model was used to calculate different effective values. Results In total, 8 trials involving 6183 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The overall pooled crude prevalence of splenectomy was 4.0% (95% CI 0.03 to 0.06, I 2 =71.5%, p<0.001) in patients with CTEPH. Subgroup analysis showed a statistically significant high incidence of splenectomy in patients with CTEPH (OR=2.94, 95% CI 1.62 to 5.33, I 2 =0.0%, p<0.001) compared with patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. There was a significantly high incidence of splenectomy in patients with CTEPH (OR=5.59, 95% CI 2.12 to 14.74, I 2 =0.0%, p<0.001) compared with patients with thromboembolism disease (venous thromboembolism or pulmonary embolism). Conclusion The prevalence of splenectomy in patients with CTEPH was 4.0% and CTEPH might be associated with splenectomy. However, high-quality prospective trials are needed. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020137591.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".