Impact of diabetes and hypertension for the development of cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to systematically evaluate the evidence respecting the association of risk factors for the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among patients with diabetes and hypertension (HTN). Articles were searched from 2015 to 2022 through PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase. The inclusion criteria included risk factors such as hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure measurement, body mass index, determining the glomerular filtration rate(GER), and blood lipid profile in patients with HTN and diabetes. The quality of the study was assessed by assessment Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). After thorough research, only seven out of 170 articles were selected. The systolic blood pressure (SBP) and GER were calculated. All studies' quality was good under the NOS criteria. Generally, high HbA1c: 138 mmHg, high or low GFR: >60 ml/minute/1.75 m2), and increasing SBP (SBP from 120 to 139 to ≥140 mmHg) are great risk factors for CVD among diabetes and HTN patients. No data on blood lipid profile and body mass index was available among the selected studies. It was concluded that relatively well-controlled HTN and diabetes might reduce the risk factors for the development of CVD.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".