Statins and Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent large, randomized trial suggested that statins may increase the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage. Accordingly, we systematically reviewed the association of statins with intracerebral hemorrhage in randomized and observational data. METHODS AND RESULTS: We screened 17 electronic bibliographic databases to identify eligible studies and consulted with experts in the field. We used DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models to compute summary risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Randomized trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies were analyzed separately. Only adjusted risk estimates were used for pooling observational data. We included published and unpublished data from 23 randomized trials and 19 observational studies. The complete data set comprised 248 391 patients and 14 784 intracerebral hemorrhages. Statins were not associated with an increased risk of intracerebral hemorrhage in randomized trials (risk ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.41), cohort studies (risk ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.10), or case-control studies (risk ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.88). Substantial statistical heterogeneity was evident for the case-control studies (I(2)=66%, P=0.01), but not for the cohort studies (I(2)=0%, P=0.48) or randomized trials (I(2)=30%, P=0.09). Sensitivity analyses by study design features, patient characteristics, or magnitude of cholesterol lowering did not materially alter the results. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that statins were associated with intracerebral hemorrhage; if such a risk is present, its absolute magnitude is likely to be small and outweighed by the other cardiovascular benefits of these drugs.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".