Stress Hyperglycemia and Prognosis of Stroke in Nondiabetic and Diabetic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: "Stress" hyperglycemia may be associated with increased mortality and poor recovery in diabetic and nondiabetic patients after stroke. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature relating acute poststroke glucose levels to the subsequent course were done to summarize and quantify this relationship. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was done for cohort studies reporting mortality and/or functional recovery after stroke in relation to admission glucose level. Relative risks in hyperglycemic compared with normoglycemic patients with and without diabetes were calculated and meta-analyzed when possible. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were identified; relative risks for prespecified outcomes were reported or could be calculated in 26 studies. After stroke of either subtype (ischemic or hemorrhagic), the unadjusted relative risk of in-hospital or 30-day mortality associated with admission glucose level >6 to 8 mmol/L (108 to 144 mg/dL) was 3.07 (95% CI, 2.50 to 3.79) in nondiabetic patients and 1.30 (95% CI, 0.49 to 3.43) in diabetic patients. After ischemic stroke, admission glucose level >6.1 to 7.0 mmol/L (110 to 126 mg/dL) was associated with increased risk of in-hospital or 30-day mortality in nondiabetic patients only (relative risk=3.28; 95% CI, 2.32 to 4.64). After hemorrhagic stroke, admission hyperglycemia was not associated with higher mortality in either diabetic or nondiabetic patients. Nondiabetic stroke survivors whose admission glucose level was >6.7 to 8 mmol/L (121 to 144 mg/dL) also had a greater risk of poor functional recovery (relative risk=1.41; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.73). CONCLUSIONS: Acute hyperglycemia predicts increased risk of in-hospital mortality after ischemic stroke in nondiabetic patients and increased risk of poor functional recovery in nondiabetic stroke survivors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".