MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414717095 · doi:10.1111/jebm.70080

Intervention at Circulating Homocysteine Levels >10 µmol/L for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review and Dose–Response Meta‐Analysis

2025· review· en· W4414717095 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zihui Huang, Jiupeng Zou, Zhen Li, Mengchu Li, Ruikun He, Jing Zeng, Zhijun Yang, Hua‐Bin Li, Xiaoting Lu, Huilian Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evidence-Based Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary preventionIntervention (counseling)HomocysteinePrimary careDiseaseEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Several studies suggested that the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) had increased before individuals developed hyperhomocysteinemia. This study aimed to investigate the dose-response relationship between circulating homocysteine (Hcy) levels and the risk of CVD. METHODS: Observational studies examining the relationship between circulating Hcy levels and CVD risks were included. Searches were conducted on English databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) and Chinese databases (CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and SinoMed) in May 2025. Combined relative risks (RRs) or odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using random-effects models. The dose-response relationship between circulating Hcy levels and CVD risks was assessed using restricted cubic spline analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort and case-control studies, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality criteria for cross-sectional studies. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and the trim-and-fill method. RESULTS: A total of 117 original studies (35 cohort studies, 60 case-control studies, and 22 cross-sectional studies) were included, involving 504,469 participants with 43,089 CVD cases. Elevated circulating Hcy levels were significantly associated with increased CVD risks in all study types (RRs/ORs: 1.61-2.14). A non-linear dose-response relationship was observed between circulating Hcy levels and CVD risks (all p < 0.001), with thresholds at 10.4 µmol/L for cohort studies, and 10.0 µmol/L for both case-control studies and cross-sectional studies. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, increased Hcy levels were linked to higher CVD risks. Circulating Hcy level >10 µmol/L may implement nutritional intervention in primary prevention of CVD.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysishigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysishigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.012
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evidence-Based MedicineSame topicFolate and B Vitamins ResearchFrench-language works237,207