Examining endothelial function and carotid artery disease in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) might be at an increased risk for the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The present protocol is developed to review and analyse published data to determine if patients with IBD have an increased CVD burden. Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review of all observational studies that examine endothelial function, arterial stiffness and carotid intima-media thickness in patients with IBD. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and study quality will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. If sufficient data are available, a meta-analysis will be conducted. The overall effect sizes will be estimated using both fixed effects models and random effects models. Statistical heterogeneity will be calculated using Higgin’s (I 2 ) tests. Subgroup analyses, conditional number of studies retrieved and their sample size, will be stratified according to participant disease category or gender or disease activity. Ethics and dissemination Formal ethics approval is not required as individual data will not be collected. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and scientific news releases. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021274093.
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 | 0.051 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.009 |
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".