MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412819791 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-093306

Comorbidities and incidence of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

2025· review· en· W4412819791 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linlong Li, Zhenzhen Li, Ping Xu, Li Huang, Xuchao Peng, Jirong Yue, Ning Ge

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science and Technology Major Project
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineEjection fractionAtrial fibrillationMeta-analysisPublication biasHeart failureFunnel plotMyocardial infarctionCohort studySubgroup analysisDiabetes mellitusCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify comorbidities associated with incident heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and quantify their HRs for early risk stratification and prevention. DESIGN: PROSPERO-registered (CRD42024505533) systematic review and meta-analysis. Primary analysis prioritised unadjusted HRs; exploratory analysis incorporated adjusted HRs. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through 15 June 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Cohort studies of adults (≥18 years) without prior HF reporting HRs for incident HFpEF-associated comorbidities. EXCLUSIONS: non-English publications, reviews, non-clinical studies and studies without HR data. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). Random-effects models pooled HRs. Heterogeneity was investigated using Galbraith/Baujat plots, meta-regression and subgroup analyses. Publication bias assessed via funnel plots, Egger's and Begg's tests. RESULTS: Among 61 eligible studies, 22 reporting unadjusted HRs formed the primary analysis, identifying five comorbidities with significant incident HFpEF risk: atrial fibrillation (AF) (HR 2.92, 95% CI 1.94 to 4.37, I²=86.6%), hypertension (HR 2.28, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.84, I²=96.9%), diabetes (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.30, I²=58.2%), obesity (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.00, I²=69.7%) and myocardial infarction (MI) (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.23, I²=72.1%). Conversely, chronic kidney disease (CKD) (HR 1.44, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.06, I²=86.6%) and cerebrovascular disease (HR 1.72, 95% CI 0.93 to 3.18, I²=77.2%) showed non-significant associations. Exploratory analysis integrating unadjusted HRs from primary studies and adjusted HRs from 39 additional studies confirmed these five comorbidities as significant risk factors, with CKD again demonstrating non-significant association. CONCLUSION: AF, hypertension, diabetes, obesity and MI constitute evidence-based targets for HFpEF risk stratification and preventive management. The CKD-HFpEF association requires validation in larger cohorts. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024505533.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.040
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207