MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312318031 · doi:10.17925/hi.2022.16.2.75

Effect of Endothelial Adhesion Molecules on Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4312318031 on OpenAlexaff
Mehran Rahimi, Leili Faridi, Leila Nikniaz, Sara Daneshvar, Amirreza Naseri, Mohammadreza Taban Sadeghi, Hesam Manaflouyan, Javad Shahabi, Nizal Sarrafzadegan

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart International · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersStudent Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical SciencesUniversity of TabrizTabriz University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationCardiologyInternal medicineMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Endothelial adhesion molecules (EAMs), and more specifically vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), belong to a family of immunoglobulin-like molecules and are found to have increased expression in inflamed microvessels. Due to the growing evidence regarding EAM effects on cardiovascular diseases, we aimed to investigate the link between EAMs and atrial fibrillation (AF) to discover the efficacy of EAMs assessment as predictive markers in high-risk patients. Methods: We searched for articles published from January 1990 to April 2022. Two independent researchers selected studies that examined the relationship between VCAM-1 and ICAM-1 levels and AF. Study design, patient characteristics, VCAM-1 and ICAM-1 levels, and measurement methods were extracted from the selected articles. Results: Of 181 records, 22 studies were finally included in the systematic review. Meta-analyses showed a significant difference in serum levels of EAMs in patients with AF compared with patients with sinus rhythms (VCAM-1: mean difference [MD] 86.782, 95% CI 22.805–150.758, p=0.008; ICAM-1: MD 28.439 ng/mL, 95% CI 12.540–44.338, p<0.001). In subgroup analysis of persistent AF, the differences were still significant (VCAM-1: MD 98.046, 95% CI 26.582–169.510, p=0.007; ICAM-1: MD 25.091, 95% CI 12.952–37.230, p<0.001). We also found the mean ranges of VCAM-1 (95% CI 661.394–927.984 ng/mL) and ICAM-1 (95% CI 190.101–318.169 ng/mL) in patients with AF. Conclusion: This study suggests a positive association between serum levels of VCAM-1 and ICAM-1 with AF, but there is a need for further large-scale studies.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.026
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeart InternationalSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207