MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417201458 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0338653

GV effects of diabetes mellitus on clinical outcomes of patients with acute heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4417201458 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linna Zhao, Juanjuan Zhang, Weizhe Liu, Cheng Dai, Aiying Li

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Hebei ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDiabetes mellitusCohortMultivariate analysisHeart failureCohort studyMeta-analysisMEDLINEUnivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is identified as a potential modifier of clinical outcomes in acute heart failure (AHF), yet its prognostic impact is not fully determined. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prognostic impact of DM on survival outcomes in AHF patients by synthesizing evidence from 26 studies involving 326,928 subjects collected from Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases up to 1 June 2024. Both prospective/retrospective cohort and case-control studies published since 2000 were included, with outcomes evaluated through multivariate, univariate, and binary analyses using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for quality assessment. Multivariate analysis indicated that DM significantly increased the risk of all-cause mortality in AHF patients (cohort studies: HR = 1.21, 95%CI (1.13, 1.29), OR=1.15, 95%CI (1.05, 1.26); case-control studies: HR = 1.39, 95%CI (1.26, 1.53), OR=1.43, 95%CI (1.10, 1.84)]. Univariate analysis confirmed this finding in case-control studies [HR = 1.30, 95%CI (1.01, 1.67)], but not in cohort studies. In both cohort [RR = 1.27, 95%CI (1.12, 1.43)] and case-control [OR=1.21, 95%CI (1.08, 1.35)] studies, DM increased the risk of all-cause mortality. AHF patients with DM had a higher risk of cardiovascular mortality [cohort studies: HR = 1.85, 95%CI (1.46, 2.33); case-control: OR=1.70, 95%CI (1.17, 2.47)]. While multivariate analysis showed no association between DM and in-hospital mortality, case-control studies indicated an increased risk [OR=1.21, 95%CI (1.03, 1.42)]. DM also increased the risk of readmission [cohort studies: HR = 1.32, 95%CI (1.14, 1.53); case-control studies: HR = 1.44, 95%CI (1.23, 1.69); binary data: OR=1.19, 95%CI (1.07, 1.31)].This updated meta-analysis demonstrates that DM imposes significant adverse effects on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-related mortality, and readmission risk in AHF patients. However, no significant connection was found between diabetes and survival outcomes with respect to the co-endpoint of death or readmission and the endpoint of in-hospital mortality. These findings underscore the necessity for implementing targeted diabetes management within AHF care protocols to enhance clinical outcomes, an essential consideration for future practice.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.036
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→