Effect of Statin Treatment on Vasospasm, Delayed Cerebral Ischemia, and Functional Outcome in Patients With Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A recent meta-analysis investigating the efficacy of statin treatment in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage reported a reduced incidence of vasospasm, delayed cerebral ischemia, and mortality in statin-treated patients. However, the meta-analysis was criticized for its methodology, and several retrospective studies found no beneficial effect. We present the results of a new systematic review, which differs from the previous systematic review in its methodology, and by inclusion of the results of a fourth randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Summary of Review- All randomized, placebo-controlled trials investigating the effect of statins on vasospasm, delayed cerebral ischemia, and functional outcome in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage were included. Outcomes were the number of patients with transcranial Doppler vasospasm, delayed cerebral ischemia, poor outcome, and mortality during follow-up. Effect sizes were expressed in (pooled) risk ratio estimates. Data were pooled using random-effects models. RESULTS: In 4 studies, a total of 190 patients were included. No statistically significant effect was observed on transcranial Doppler vasospasm (pooled risk ratio, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.66 to 1.48]), delayed cerebral ischemia (pooled risk ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.29 to 1.13]), poor outcome (pooled risk ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.24]), or mortality (pooled risk ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.13 to 1.10]). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present systematic review do not lend statistically significant support to the finding of a beneficial effect of statins in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage as reported in a previous meta-analysis.
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) | 0.001 | 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".