Meta-analysis of association between cadmium exposure and cardiovascular disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundExisting studies suggest that cadmium exposure is associated with the occurrence of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the current epidemiological evidence is inconsistent.ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the relationship between cadmium exposure and CVD through meta-analysis.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang and SinoMed databases to collect observational studies on the relationship between cadmium exposure and CVD in human population published until July 30, 2024. On the basis of following predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, the retrieved literature was systematically screened, and the basic information of the included research was extracted, including basic participant information, research outcomes, and data results. This study used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and a cross-sectional study evaluation protocol (11 items) recommended by the Quality of Health Care and Research Institutions of the United States for literature quality evaluation. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and assessment of publication bias of the data were conducted using Stata16.0 software.ResultA total of 15 studies (18 datasets) were included, and the quality of all the studies was graded as medium or above. Among them, there were 10593 cases of CVD and 86801 controls. The results of meta-analysis showed that the standard mean difference (SMD) of the CVD case group was 0.44 and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was (0.30, 0.58), and the cadmium exposure level of the CVD case group was higher than that of the control group (P<0.05). The subgroup analysis showed that the cadmium exposure levels in the CVD patients from the Americas (SMD=0.46, 95%CI: 0.29, 0.63) and Europe (SMD=0.14, 95%CI: 0.09, 0.19) were higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). The cadmium levels in blood (SMD=0.52, 95%CI: 0.31, 0.73) and urine (SMD=0.34, 95%CI: 0.16, 0.52) in the CVD case group were higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). In those cross-sectional studies (SMD=0.34, 95%CI: 0.23, 0.46), the cadmium exposure level in the CVD patients was higher than that in the control group (P<0.05). The sensitivity analysis showed robust meta-analysis results and the assessment of publication bias also showed no publication bias.ConclusionCadmium exposure may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease after multiple studies were combined by meta analysis, suggesting that the scope and level of cadmium exposure in the population should be further controlled.
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 | 0.024 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.060 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".