The impact of cardiovascular events in bronchiectasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by airway and systemic inflammation with prevalence increasing with age. Given the median age of the patients, it is common to observe the presence of comorbidities, particularly cardiovascular diseases, which have been linked to adverse clinical outcomes. To investigate the pooled estimates of the association between bronchiectasis and coronary heart disease or stroke within this population, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available scientific evidence. Methods: Three investigators independently performed the search on PubMed and other sources and included studies published up to October 2023 according to predefined criteria. Relative measures of association between bronchiectasis and cardiovascular events were pooled and meta-analysed using a fixed-effects model. Studies were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for assessing the quality of non-randomised studies in meta-analyses. Results: A final pool of nine studies was included in the systematic review, with a total of 22 239 patients. Meta-analysis of three high-quality cohort studies showed a pooled hazard ratio of 1.42 (95% CI 1.30-1.57) for coronary heart disease and 1.71 (95% CI 1.55-1.89) for cerebrovascular stroke. Conclusions: The increased cardiovascular risk among people with bronchiectasis underscores the critical need to raise awareness of this association and to develop preventive strategies accordingly. Further translational studies are imperative to gain a deeper understanding of the complex interplay between inflammation, the immune system and endothelial dysfunction in this patient group.
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 | 0.017 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".