Effect of thyroid hormone replacement treatment on cardiac diastolic function in adult patients with subclinical hypothyroidism: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) is related to abnormalities in left ventricular diastolic function, the use of levothyroxine as a regular treatment remains debatable. This meta-analysis aimed to determine whether thyroid hormone replacement therapy affects cardiac diastolic function in patients with SCH as measured by echocardiography. Methods: This meta-analysis included a search of the EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from their inception to May 18, 2023, for studies analyzing cardiac morphology and functional changes in patients with SCH before and after thyroid hormone replacement. The outcome measures were cardiac morphology and diastolic and overall cardiac function, as assessed using ultrasound parameters (including ventricular wall thickness, chamber size, mitral wave flow, tissue Doppler, and speckle tracking). The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The standard mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. Results: Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 568 patients participated and completed the follow-up. All studies specifically stated that serum thyrotropin levels returned to normal by the end of the study period. Compared with baseline levels, no significant morphological changes were observed in the heart. In terms of diastolic function, we discovered that the ratios of E-velocity to A-velocity (E/A) had greatly improved after thyroid hormone replacement therapy, whereas the ratios of the mitral inflow E wave to the tissue Doppler e' wave (E/e') had not. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) increased significantly after treatment with levothyroxine. Conclusion: In adult patients with SCH, thyroid hormone supplementation can partially but not completely improve parameters of diastolic function during the observation period. This meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement, an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (11) and was registered with INPLASY (INPLASY202320083). Systematic review registration: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2023-2-0083.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".