The association between C-reactive protein and coronary artery calcification: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While coronary artery calcification (CAC) is recognized as a reliable marker for coronary atherosclerosis, the relationship between the concentration of C-reactive protein (CRP) and the incidence and progression of CAC remains controversial. METHOD: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were systematically searched to identify relevant observational studies until October 2023. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A random-effects meta-analysis was employed to calculate pooled odd ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals, considering heterogeneity among the studies. RESULTS: Out of the 2545 records, 42 cross-sectional and 9 cohort studies were included in the systematic review. The meta-analysis on 12 eligible cross-sectional studies revealed no significant association between CAC and CRP [pooled OR: 1.03 (1.00, 1.06)]. Additionally, an insignificant association was found between CAC and CRP through meta-analysis on three eligible cohort studies [pooled OR: 1.05 (0.95, 1.15)] with no considerable heterogeneity across studies. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the meta-analysis models were robust. There was no evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSION: Based on the meta-analysis findings, elevated levels of CRP did not emerge as a valuable prognostic maker for CAC incidence and progression prediction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".