Is retinal vein occlusion highly associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and objective Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and acute myocardial infarction (MI) are significant vascular events that impact patient health and mortality. Both conditions share common risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, and atherosclerosis. This study investigated the potential connection between RVO and MI, particularly among younger individuals, to improve preventive measures and management protocols. Method A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, adhering to the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, and ClinicalTrials.gov, were exhaustively searched until August 24, 2024. Studies were selected based on their reports of the association between RVO and MI risk. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, and data were pooled using a random-effects model with hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Result Twelve studies comprising 371,817 participants were included. Meta-analysis revealed a pooled hazard ratio of 1.324 (95% CI, 1.238–1.415), indicating a significant association between RVO and increased MI risk ( p = 0.0001). Subgroup analysis for central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) showed a hazard ratio of 1.691 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.142, 2.502, p = 0.009) with moderate heterogeneity (I 2 = 36%), whereas branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) yielded a non-significant hazard ratio of 1.167 (95% CI 0.843, 2.106, p = 0.444; I 2 = 33%). Publication bias was identified (Egger’s test, p = 0.036) and addressed through trim-and-fill adjustment, maintaining statistical significance. Conclusion Our meta-analysis shows a strong association between CRVO and a 69.1% increased risk of MI, while BRVO shows no significant correlation. Overall, RVO is linked to a 32.4% elevated risk of MI. Despite slight publication bias, adjusted analyses confirm reliability, indicating that improved cardiovascular monitoring for RVO patients, especially those with CRVO, is essential to mitigate MI risk. Clinical trial number Not applicable.
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 | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".