ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2025
Metabolic Syndrome and Outcome Predictions: Friends or Foes?
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAn analysis based on epidemiological material to show whether the term Metabolic Syndrome (MS) should be adopted when aiming at predicting coronary heart disease (CHD) and major cardiovascular disease (CVD) fatal events. MATERIAL AND
methodsMS was defined according to the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) and risk factors were identified in the Italian Risk Factors and Life Expectancy (RIFLE) population study covering over 25,000 adult men from a pool of 19 Italian population samples. The original MS definition and the plain original units of measured risk factors were challenged in Cox proportional hazard models predicting 196 CHD and 412 major CVD fatal events in a seven-year follow-up. Parallel models were run including also total serum cholesterol as a covariate, an unfortunately excluded covariate in the MS definition. The performance of the various models was tested by the log-likelihood statistics treated with the Akaike Information Criterium (AIC).
resultsModels using the plain measurements of the risk factors involved were systematically and significantly outperforming any other categorized score based on the IDF-MS classification. An intermediate role was played by a model where the predictive variable was a factor score (derived from a Factor Analysis) where the MS risk factors were linearly combined. The same models also including serum cholesterol provided a significantly better prediction when compared with those without serum cholesterol, based on AIC.
conclusionsThe use of a subset of classical CVD risk factors classified according to the IDF-MS criteria adds nothing better than the exclusive use of the risk factors treated by traditional procedures. The addition of serum cholesterol definitely helps in the prediction of the CHD component of major CVD events. Its omission is erroneous.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.