Association between Metabolic Syndrome and Risk of Stroke: A Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to investigate the association between metabolic syndrome and risk of stroke by meta-analysis. METHODS: Electronic databases through July 2007 were searched to identify prospective cohort studies that examined the association between metabolic syndrome and risk of stroke. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and used a standardized form to collect data from published studies. The study quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: We found 13 eligible studies that included 92,732 participants. Compared to individuals without metabolic syndrome, subjects with metabolic syndrome had a 1.6-fold increased risk of stroke (95% CI, 1.48-1.75). The relative risk of stroke associated with metabolic syndrome was 2.2 in the studies using the World Health Organization definition and 1.6 in those using the Adult Treatment Panel III definition, but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that metabolic syndrome is an important risk factor for incident stroke. A diagnosis of metabolic syndrome may prove useful in clinical management, and its elements should ultimately become important therapeutic targets for the reduction of the stroke burden in the general population.
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 | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".