Ambulatory arterial stiffness index, mortality, and adverse cardiovascular outcomes; Systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI) is a novel measure of both blood pressure (BP) variability and arterial stiffness. This systematic review and meta‐analysis was designed to evaluate the strength of the association between AASI and mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Google Scholar. and the Cochrane library were searched for relevant studies to July 31, 2023. Two investigators independently extracted data. The Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of all included articles. The relationship between baseline AASI and outcomes were examined using relative risk (RR) ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) with RevMan web. Thirteen studies were included and representing 28 855 adult patients who were followed up from 2.2 to 15.2 years. A 1‐standard deviation (1‐SD) increase in AASI was associated with a significant increase in all‐cause death (RR 1.12; 95% CI: 0.95‐1.32), stroke (RR 1.25; 95% CI: 1.09‐1.44), and MACE (RR 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01‐1.13; [ I 2 = 32%]). Higher dichotomized AASI (above vs. below researcher defined cut‐offs) was associated with a significant increase in all‐cause mortality (RR 1.19; 95% CI: 1.06‐1.32), cardiovascular death (RR 1.29; 95% CI: 1.14‐1.46), stroke (RR 1.57; 95% CI: 1.33‐1.85), and MACE (RR1.29; 95% CI: 1.16‐1.44). There was a significant risk of bias in more than 50% of studies with no evidence of significant publication bias. Higher AASI is associated with an increased risk of all‐cause and cardiovascular death, stroke, and MACE. Further high‐quality studies are warranted to determine reproducible AASI cut‐offs to enhance its clinical risk precision.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".