MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210407884 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0262885

The association between trajectories of risk factors and risk of cardiovascular disease or mortality among patients with diabetes or hypertension: A systematic review

2022· review· en· W4210407884 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuan Wang, Eric Yuk Fai Wan, Ivy Lynn Mak, Margaret Kay Ho, Weng Yee Chin, Esther Yee Tak Yu, Cindy Lo Kuen Lam

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth and Medical Research FundKerry Group Kuok FoundationFood and Health Bureau
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexBlood pressureDiabetes mellitusPopulationInternal medicineRisk factorRenal functionDiseaseType 2 diabetesEndocrinologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Cardiometabolic risk factors and renal function are monitored regularly for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM)/ hypertension (HT). In addition to risk factor levels at a single time point, their trajectory (changes over time) can also be differentially related to the risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and mortality. This study aimed to systematically examine the evidence regarding the association between risk factor trajectories and risk of CVD/mortality in patients with DM/HT. METHOD: PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched for articles from January 1963 to April 2021. Inclusion criteria: studies that 1) analyzed trajectories of risk factors including haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), body mass index (BMI), and blood lipids; 2) were performed in the DM/HT population and, 3) included risk of CVD/mortality as outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. RESULTS: A total of 22,099 articles were identified. After screening by title and abstract, 22,027 articles were excluded by irrelevant outcomes, exposure, population, or type of articles. Following full-text screening, 11 articles investigating the trajectories of HbA1c (N = 7), systolic blood pressure (SBP) (N = 3), and eGFR (N = 1) were included for data extraction and analysis. No studies were identified examining the association of BMI or lipid trajectories with CVD/mortality. All included studies were of good quality based on the NOS criteria. In general, stable trajectories within optimal ranges of the risk factors (HbA1c: <7%, SBP: 120-139mmHg, eGFR: >60mL/min/1.73m2) had the lowest CVD/mortality risk compared to an increasing HbA1c trajectory (from 8% to 10%), an increasing SBP trajectory (from 120-139 to ≥140mmHg), or a decreasing eGFR trajectory (from 90 to 70mL/min/1.73m2). CONCLUSION: A relatively stable and well-controlled trajectory for cardiometabolic risk factors was associated with the lowest risk of CVD/mortality. Risk factor trajectories have important clinical implications in addition to single time point measurements. More attention should be given to patients with suboptimal control and those with unstable trends of cardiometabolic risk factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0090.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207