Evaluation of subclinical cardiac damage in biopsy-proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Data on the association of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) with subclinical cardiac damage are scanty.We performed a systematic review to provide comprehensive information on subclinical cardiac alterations among NAFLD subjects.Methods PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify studies comparing subclinical cardiac damage between NAFLD and healthy adults.We also searched PROSPERO to check for any similar meta-analysis in progress in order to avoid duplication with our study.Conference abstracts and the reference lists of relevant studies and systematic reviews were perused.The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale for case-control and cohort studies were used to assess study quality. ResultsSeven studies were finally included in the meta-analysis (1 cross sectional and 6 casecontrol), with a total of 602 individuals (362 patients with NAFLD).Epicardial fat thickness were statistically significantly higher in patients with NAFLD than in controls (mean difference [MD] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-1.89,I 2 =89%).Global longitudinal strain was lower in NAFLD, to a statistically significant degree (MD -3.17, 95%CI -5.09 to -1.24,I 2 =89%).However, significant heterogeneity of the findings was observed. ConclusionsOur findings indicate that NAFLD is related to subclinical cardiac damage.Further studies with a larger number of biopsy-proven NAFLD patients are needed to confirm this finding.Preventive and therapeutic interventions early in the course of the disease might decrease morbidity in this high-risk patient group.
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 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".