Association of preserved ratio impaired spirometry with mortality and cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) is a type of abnormal lung function. PRISm and mortality have been explored in several studies, but a comprehensive evaluation of the associations is limited. The current study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to investigate the mortality and cardiovascular diseases in patients with PRISm. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases, as well as gray literature sources, were searched for relevant studies published up to 7 September 2023 without language restrictions. This review included all published observational cohort studies that investigated the association of PRISm with mortality in the general population, as well as subgroup analyses in smokers and pre-bronchodilation spirometry studies. The outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and respiratory-related mortality. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale assessed study quality. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses explored heterogeneity and robustness. Publication bias was assessed with Egger’s and Begg’s tests. Results Overall, eight studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled HR was 1.60 (95% CI, 1.48–1.74) for all-cause mortality, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.46–1.94) for CVD mortality, and 3.09 (95% CI, 1.42–6.71) for respiratory-related mortality in PRISm group compared to normal group. In the subgroup analysis, participants with PRISm had a higher effect (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.74–2.54) on all-cause mortality among smokers relative to participants with normal spirometry. Furthermore, the association between PRISm and mortality risk was consistent across several sensitivity analyses. Conclusions People with PRISm were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, CVD mortality, and respiratory-related mortality as compared to those with normal lung function in the general population. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42023426872.
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".