MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391446200 · doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwae042

Association between cardiovascular disease and risk of female sexual dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4391446200 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersXinjiang Medical University
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisOdds ratioCochrane LibraryInternal medicineSubgroup analysisRelative riskDiseaseConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Female sexual dysfunction (FSD) is a considerably underestimated condition. It has been repeatedly reported that patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVD) may suffer from an increased risk of FSD. However, there is still a lack of comprehensive and systematic evaluation of various CVD and FSD. We aimed to elucidate the association between CVD and FSD through a comprehensive literature review and meta-analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from inception to 28 February 2023. We identified all relevant studies reporting the risk of FSD in subjects with or without CVD. The associations between CVD and the risk of FSD were assessed by calculating pooled odds ratios (ORs) (cross-sectional studies) and risk ratios (RRs) (longitudinal studies) with 95% CIs. We employed random-effects models to account for potential heterogeneity, and the quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Fifty-four articles with 148 946 individuals were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with control subjects, subjects with CVD had a 1.51-fold increased risk of FSD (OR 1.51 95% CI, 1.34-1.69, P < 0.001, heterogeneity I2 = 91.4%, P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses indicated that the association between CVD and FSD remained significant in longitudinal studies (RR 1.50 95% CI, 1.21-1.86, P < 0.001, heterogeneity I2 = 86.7%, P < 0.001). Particularly, hypertension (OR 1.41 95% CI, 1.23-1.62, P < 0.001, heterogeneity I2 = 82.7%, P < 0.001), stroke (OR 1.81 95% CI, 1.54-2.12, P < 0.001, heterogeneity I2 = 0%, P < 0.423), and myocardial infarction (OR 2.07 95% CI, 1.60-2.67, P < 0.001 heterogeneity I2 = 82.4%, P < 0.001) were significantly associated with FSD. Meta-regression revealed that the primary sources of heterogeneity in FSD are attributable to adjustments for covariates, study design, and study population. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis indicated that patients with CVD suffer from a greater risk of developing FSD. Meanwhile, we validated these findings in longitudinal queues. Notably, conditions such as hypertension, stroke, and myocardial infarction demonstrated a significant association with the incidence of FSD.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.237 · 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