Cardiovascular disease in patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis compared with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and other liver diseases: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) is poorly characterized, particularly versus other liver diseases including metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). To identify available evidence, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane database searches (main search: 2011–September 6, 2021; additional ad hoc search [MEDLINE only]: September 7, 2021–February 15, 2023), plus manual searches (2019–September 2021), were performed. Studies reporting CVD outcomes (angina, coronary artery disease [CAD], heart failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral artery disease, stroke, venous thromboembolic disease, and CV mortality) in adults with histologically confirmed MASH and MASLD or other liver diseases were identified, with studies of MASLD without confirmed MASH excluded. Of 8732 studies, 21 were included. An increased incidence or prevalence of CVD in patients with MASH versus other conditions was reported in 12 studies; odds ratios (OR), where reported, ranged from 3.12 (95 % CI: 1.33–5.32) to 4.12 (95 % CI: 1.91–8.90). The risk of CAD was increased in people with MASH in 6 of 7 studies, while the risk of stroke was increased in 6 of 6 studies, and heart failure in 2 of 4 studies. Three of 6 studies provided evidence of increased CVD-related mortality in patients with MASH versus those without. In conclusion, this literature review suggests that CVD is prevalent in patients with MASH and may contribute to increased mortality. Accordingly, cardiovascular risk factors should be aggressively managed in this population. Whether the CVD burden in patients with MASH is a direct consequence of MASH itself requires further study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".