MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404252757 · doi:10.1186/s40942-024-00606-9

Is retinal vein occlusion highly associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4404252757 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Retina and Vitreous · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Optic Conditions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisMyocardial infarctionRetinal VeinCardiologyMedicineInternal medicineOcclusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.317 · 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