Aortic arch atheroma and the risk of stroke: a meta‐analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS AND OBJECTIVES: Epidemiological studies have suggested that aortic atheroma may play a role in cerebral embolization; however, no meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship between aortic atheroma and risk of stroke. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between the presence of aortic atheroma and risk of stroke. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of observational studies reporting the relationship between the presence of aortic atheroma and stroke using the PubMed, EMbase, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI), Chinese Technical Periodicals (VIP), and WanFang Data databases. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and extracted data from the included studies. We performed the meta-analysis to estimate the strength of the association according to Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guideline and assessed the study quality by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: We identified 12 eligible studies with 3918 participants. The scores of the NOS of the included studies ranged from 5 to 9. The pooled estimate of strength of the association between the presence of aortic atheroma and stroke was statistical significant (OR = 3.93, 95%CI 2.86 to 5.40). In subgroup analysis according to plaques' morphology, complex aortic atheroma had significantly higher (OR = 5.90, 95%CI 4.14 to 8.41) risk of stroke than protruding atheroma (OR = 3.75, 95%CI 3.05 to 4.61). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that aortic atheroma significantly increased the risk of stroke by about four times. Patients with complex aortic atheroma have a higher risk of stroke than protruding atheroma.
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.
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it