M1. Association between Subclinical Hypothyroidism and Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aims The correlation between subclinical hypothyroidism and heart failure has been increasingly investigated, but still controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between subclinical hypothyroidism and the incidence of heart failure. Methods and Results Two reviewers systematically searched literature evaluating the association between subclinical hypothyroidism and heart failure on PubMed from inception to June 2021. Subclinical hypothyroidism was defined as thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) of 4.5 to 19.9 mIU/L with normal T4 level in the absence of symptoms. The quality of the studies was reported using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). A meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software by analyzing the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) using a random and fixed-effects model. A total of six cohort studies involving 602,176 subjects were included. Among the participants, 14,995 (2.5%) had subclinical hypothyroidism. Our pooled analysis showed that individuals with subclinical hypothyroid had an increased risk of heart failure compared to those with euthyroid (HR = 1.03; 95%CI = 0.95-1.11, p = 0.50); however, it was not statistically significant. Furthermore, subgroup analysis was done based on TSH level divided into 4.5-6.9 mIU/L, 7.0-9.9 mIU/L, and ≥10.0 mIU/L. Increased risk of heart failure was significantly associated with TSH level of ≥ 10.0 mIU/L (HR = 1.93; 95%CI = 1.24-3.01, p = 0.004). Conclusion Higher TSH level in subclinical hypothyroidism is associated with an increased risk of heart failure, particularly for TSH ≥10 mIU/L.
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 | 0.014 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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".