MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4361295234 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065551

Risk factors for cardiovascular events in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia: protocol for a systematic review

2023· review· en· W4361295234 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
María Elena Mansilla-Rodríguez, Manuel Jesús Romero-Jiménez, Alina Rigabert, Eva Nadiedja Gutierrez-Cortizo, José Luis Sánchez‐Ramos, Pedro Mata, Jing Pang, Gerald F. Watts

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINECINAHLCochrane LibraryObservational studySystematic reviewMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialFamily medicineProtocol (science)PediatricsAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathologyPsychological interventionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (heFH) is the most common monogenic cause of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The precise diagnosis of heFH is established by genetic testing. This systematic review will investigate the risk factors that predict cardiovascular events in patients with a genetic diagnosis of heFH. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our literature search will cover publications from database inception until June 2023. We will undertake a search of CINAHL (trial), clinicalKey, Cochrane Library, DynaMed, Embase, Espacenet, Experiments (trial), Fisterra, ÍnDICEs CSIC, LILACS, LISTA, Medline, Micromedex, NEJM Resident 360, OpenDissertations, PEDro, Trip Database, PubPsych, Scopus, TESEO, UpToDate, Web of Science and the grey literature for eligible studies. We will screen the title, abstract and full-text papers for potential inclusion and assess the risk of bias. We will employ the Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials and non-randomised clinical studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for assessing the risk of bias in observational studies. We will include full-text peer-reviewed publications, reports of a cohort/registry, case-control and cross-sectional studies, case report/series and surveys related to adults (≥18 years of age) with a genetic diagnostic heFH. The language of the searched studies will be restricted to English or Spanish. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be used to assess the quality of the evidence. Based on the data available, the authors will determine whether the data can be pooled in meta-analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All data will be extracted from published literature. Hence, ethical approval and patient informed consent are not required. The findings of the systematic review will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022304273.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.017
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0680.007

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health→French-language works237,207→