Recurrent Stroke and Patent Foramen Ovale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recurrent cerebrovascular events are frequent in medically treated patients with patent foramen ovale (PFO), but it still remains unclear whether PFO is a causal or an incidental finding. Further uncertainty exists on whether the size of functional shunting could represent a potential risk factor. The aim of the present study was to evaluate if the presence of PFO is associated with an increased risk of recurrent stroke or transient ischemic attack and to investigate further if this relationship is related to the shunt size. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines of all available prospective studies reporting recurrent cerebrovascular events defined as cryptogenic stroke and transient ischemic attacks in medically treated patients with PFO diagnosed by echocardiography or transcranial sonography. RESULTS: We identified 14 eligible studies including a total of 4251 patients. Patients with stroke with PFO did not have a higher risk of the combined outcome of recurrent stroke/transient ischemic attack (risk ratio=1.18; 95% confidence interval=0.78-1.79; P=0.43) or in the incidence of recurrent strokes (risk ratio =0.85; 95% confidence interval=0.59-1.22; P=0.37) in comparison with stroke patients without PFO. In addition, PFO size was not associated with the risk of recurrent stroke or transient ischemic attack. We also documented no evidence of heterogeneity across the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that medically treated patients with PFO do not have a higher risk for recurrent cryptogenic cerebrovascular events, compared with those without PFO. No relation between the degree of PFO and the risk of future cerebrovascular events was identified.
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 | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".