MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385291330 · doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwad243

Cardiovascular outcomes in breast cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4385291330 on OpenAlexaff
Akhmetzhan Galimzhanov, Sedralmontaha Istanbuly, Han Naung Tun, Benay Özbay, Mirvat Alasnag, Bonnie Ky, Alexander R. Lyon, Meral Kayıkçıoğlu, Erhan Tenekecioğlu, Maria Panagioti, Evangelos Kontopantelis, Husam Abdel‐Qadir, Mamas Mamas

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity and mitigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersFondation Leducq
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineMeta-analysisBreast cancerHazard ratioPopulationMyocardial infarctionPublication biasCoronary artery diseaseStroke (engine)Funnel plotRelative riskHeart failureAtrial fibrillationCancerCardiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: It is unclear whether the future risk of cardiovascular events in breast cancer (Bc) survivors is greater than in the general population. This meta-analysis quantifies the risk of cardiovascular disease development in Bc patients, compared to the risk in a general matched cancer-free population, and reports the incidence of cardiovascular events in patients with Bc. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases (up to 23 March 2022) for observational studies and post hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials. Cardiovascular death, heart failure (HF), atrial fibrillation (AF), coronary artery disease (CAD), myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke were the individual endpoints for our meta-analysis. We pooled incidence rates (IRs) and risk in hazard ratios (HRs), using random-effects meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was reported through the I2 statistic, and publication bias was examined using funnel plots and Egger's test in the meta-analysis of risk. One hundred and forty-two studies were identified in total, 26 (836 301 patients) relevant to the relative risk and 116 (2 111 882 patients) relevant to IRs. Compared to matched cancer-free controls, Bc patients had higher risk for cardiovascular death within 5 years of cancer diagnosis [HR = 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07, 1.11], HF within 10 years (HR = 1.21; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.33), and AF within 3 years (HR = 1.13; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.21). The pooled IR for cardiovascular death was 1.73 (95% CI 1.18, 2.53), 4.44 (95% CI 3.33, 5.92) for HF, 4.29 (95% CI 3.09, 5.94) for CAD, 1.98 (95% CI 1.24, 3.16) for MI, 4.33 (95% CI 2.97, 6.30) for stroke of any type, and 2.64 (95% CI 2.97, 6.30) for ischaemic stroke. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer exposure was associated with the increased risk for cardiovascular death, HF, and AF. The pooled incidence for cardiovascular endpoints varied depending on population characteristics and endpoint studied. REGISTRATION: CRD42022298741.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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 score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.035
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations47
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Preventive CardiologySame topicChemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity and mitigationFrench-language works237,207