MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402147394 · doi:10.14740/cr1680

Prevalence of Genetically Associated Dilated Cardiomyopathy: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· article· en· W4402147394 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael C. Myers, Su Wang, Yue Zhong, Sonomi Maruyama, Cindy Bueno, Arnaud Bastien, Mir Sohail Fazeli, Negar Golchin

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilated cardiomyopathyMedicineTitinCardiologyInternal medicineCardiomyopathyMeta-analysisDiseaseHeart failureHeart transplantationMyocyte

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a leading cause of heart failure and cardiac transplantation globally. Disease-associated genetic variants play a significant role in the development of DCM. Accurately determining the prevalence of genetically associated DCM (genetic DCM) is important for developing targeted prevention strategies. This review synthesized published literature on the global prevalence of genetic DCM across various populations, focusing on two of the most common variants: titin ( TTN ) and myosin heavy chain 7 ( MYH7 ). Methods: MEDLINE ® and Embase were searched from database inception to September 19, 2022 for English-language studies reporting the prevalence of genetic DCM within any population. Studies using family history as a proxy for genetic DCM were excluded. Results: Of 2,736 abstracts, 57 studies were included. Among the global adult or mixed (mostly adults with few pediatric patients) DCM population, median prevalence was 20.2% (interquartile range (IQR): 16.3-36.0%) for overall genetic DCM, 11.4% (IQR: 8.2-17.8%) for TTN -associated DCM, and 3.2% (IQR: 1.8-5.2%) for MYH7 -associated DCM. Global prevalence of overall pediatric genetic DCM within the DCM population was similar (weighted mean: 21.3%). Few studies reported data on the prevalence of genetic DCM within the general population. Conclusions: Our study identified variable prevalence estimates of genetic DCM across different populations and geographic locations. The current evidence may underestimate the genetic contributions due to limited screening and detection of potential DCM patients. Epidemiological studies using long-read whole genome sequencing to identify structural variants or non-coding variants are needed, as well as large cohort datasets with genotype-phenotype correlation analyses. Cardiol Res. 2024;15(4):233-245 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/cr1680

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207