Endothelial dysfunction in COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using different functional assessment methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in COPD. Endothelial dysfunction is suggested to be one of the pathogenetic mechanisms involved. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using any available functional method to examine differences in endothelial function between patients with COPD and individuals without COPD (controls). METHODS: functional methods. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was applied to evaluate the quality of retrieved studies. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity across the studies. Funnel plots were constructed to evaluate publication bias. RESULTS: Of the 21 reports initially identified, 19 studies with a total of 968 participants were included in the final meta-analysis. A significantly impaired response in endothelium-dependent (weighted mean between-group difference (WMD) -2.59, 95% CI -3.75 to -1.42) and -independent vasodilation (WMD -3.13, 95% CI -5.18 to -1.09) was observed in patients with COPD compared to controls. When pooling all studies together, regardless of the technique used for assessment of vascular reactivity, pronounced endothelial dysfunction was observed in COPD compared to controls (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.19, 95% CI -1.69 to -0.68). Subgroup analysis showed that the difference was larger when patients with COPD were compared with nonsmoking controls (SMD -1.75, 95% CI -2.58 to -0.92). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the results. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COPD have significantly impaired endothelial function compared to controls without COPD. Future studies should delineate the importance of endothelial dysfunction towards development of cardiovascular disease in COPD.
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 | 0.022 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".