Association of Obesity with Coronary Artery Disease, Erosive Esophagitis and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We aimed to determine the plausible role of high body mass index (BMI) in the etiopathogenesis of coronary artery disease (CAD), erosive esophagitis (EE) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and their complex associations. Methods: The published literature was retrieved from Cochrane, Google Scholar, Embase, PubMed and Scopus databases until August 2021 based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used for the risk of bias and publication bias with a funnel plot. Heterogeneity between studies underwent evaluation using the I2 statistic and Q-test, and a random and fixed-effect model analysed studies with low to moderate heterogeneity. Results: Out of 3819 studies extracted, 20 studies were studied based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The study corroborated the direct association of GERD symptoms and EE among obese Odds Ratio (OR) = 4.25) and overweight subjects (OR 9.75). Separate analyses of the link between GERD symptoms and EE was conducted among the overweight (OR 4.11, OR 4.61) and obesity subjects was statistically significant (OR 12.07, OR 9.95). The corresponding adjusted OR was noted for the association of CAD with overweight and obesity amounted to 3.41 and 3.01, respectively. Separate subgroup analysis was analyzed based on different ethnic populations for the association between GERD symptoms and EE in obesity (OR of 9.38) and overweight (OR of 4.21) subjects were statistically significant (P<0.05). For population subgroup analyses the overall OR of 3.32 was noted on the association between CAD and obesity. Conclusion: Moderate to severe BMI has bene considered as an independent risk factor for GERD symptoms, EE and CAD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".