Bidirectional association between cardiovascular disease and hip fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to comprehensively analyze the bidirectional association between cardiovascular disease (CVD) and hip fracture (HF). We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Sciences, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for relevant studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate the risk of bias. We conducted random effects model for meta-analysis and subgroup analysis of different ethnic groups. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias of this study were also evaluated. This study followed the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This research included 18 cohort studies and case-control studies with a total sample of 1,854,441 individuals. The results showed ischemic heart disease might increase the risk of HF (OR = 1.41, 95%CI[1.05, 1.89], I2 = 96%). Stroke might be a risk factor for HF (OR = 2.23, 95%[1.18, 4.19], I2 = 97%), and HF might likewise be a risk factor for Stroke ( OR = 2.22, 95% CI [1.81, 2.71], I2 = 78%). Heart failure might increase the risk of HF (OR = 2.89, 95%CI [1.22, 6.85], I2 = 91%), and HF might increase the risk of heart failure (OR = 2.74, 95%CI [1.27, 5.89], I2 = 92%). Hypertension might increase the risk of HF (OR = 1.55, 95%CI[1.34, 1.8], I2 = 87%), and HF might increase the risk of hypertension (OR = 3.75, 95%CI[3.3, 4.26], I2 = 98%). Cerebrovascular disease (OR = 1.96, 95%CI[1.61, 2.4], I2 = 79%) and diseases of arteries, arterioles, and capillaries (OR = 1.58, 95%CI[1.49, 1.68], I2 = 0%) might increase the risk of HF. HF might increase the risk of myocardial infarction (OR = 2, 95%CI[1.17, 3.41], I2 = 97%) and CVD-related death (OR = 1.78, 95%CI[1.05, 3.02], I2 = 50%). Subgroup analyses showed that among Asians IHD might not raise the risk of HF (OR = 1.33, 95% CI [1.00, 1.78], I2 = 95%). In caucasians, IHD might also not raise HF risk (OR = 1.52, 95%CI [0.64, 4.56], I2 = 95%). This study supports possible bidirectional associations between CVD and HF, but more mechanistic studies of CVD and HF were warranted. However, high heterogeneity and potential confounding by unmeasured variables warrant cautious interpretation.
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 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".