The prevalence of metabolic syndrome in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a cluster of factors that increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. It is highly prevalent among patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed MetS prevalence in COPD patients, focusing on variations by gender, diagnostic criteria, and disease severity. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL. Two reviewers independently extracted data using a standardized form, and study quality was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Prevalence rates, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), were calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses by sex, COPD severity, and MetS components were conducted. Results Forty-two studies, including 54,278 COPD patients, were analyzed. Overall, the prevalence of MetS was 37% (95% CI: 30.6–43.8%; I 2 = 99.03%, p < 0.001). Prevalence was 48% (95% CI 38.1 to 57.5) in males and 43% (95% CI 38.3 to 48.8) in females. Among studies using the Alberti definition, the pooled prevalence was 46% (95% CI 35.6 to 56.3). Patients with GOLD stage II showed a prevalence of 44% (95% CI 37.3 to 50.4). The most common MetS components were Hypertension 58% (95% CI 47.2 to 68.0) and increased waist circumference 51% (95% CI 37.1 to 64.6). Conclusion MetS is highly prevalent among COPD patients. Standardized diagnostic criteria are needed, and early detection with integrated care is recommended.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".