Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence across various diagnostic approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy (CCM) is a cardiac dysfunction associated with liver cirrhosis, yet no consensus exists on standardized diagnostic criteria. We aimed to assess CCM prevalence using several guidelines. METHODS: A systematic search of four databases (PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and EBSCO) identified observational studies reporting CCM prevalence in cirrhotic patients based on the three criteria: the World Congress of Gastroenterology (Montreal 2005), the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE 2009), and the Cirrhotic Cardiomyopathy Consortium (CCC 2019). A random-effects meta-analysis and subgroup analyses were performed using R Studio. RESULTS: =97%). Prevalence was highest using Montreal 2005 (51%), followed by ASE 2009 (45%) and CCC 2019 (45%). CCC 2019 better identified CCM in early-stage cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A), whereas Montreal 2005 was more sensitive in advanced stages (Child-Pugh C). CONCLUSION: CCM prevalence varies by diagnostic criteria and cirrhosis severity. Further studies are needed to determine the clinical relevance and prognostic value of each criterion. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024511527.
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 | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 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".