Impact of Thrombophilia on Risk of Arterial Ischemic Stroke or Cerebral Sinovenous Thrombosis in Neonates and Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to estimate the impact of thrombophilia on risk of first childhood stroke through a meta-analysis of published observational studies. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic search of electronic databases (Medline via PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library) for studies published from 1970 to 2009 was conducted. Data on year of publication, study design, country of origin, number of patients/control subjects, ethnicity, stroke type (arterial ischemic stroke [AIS], cerebral venous sinus thrombosis [CSVT]) were abstracted. Publication bias indicator and heterogeneity across studies were evaluated, and summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with fixed-effects or random-effects models. Twenty-two of 185 references met inclusion criteria. Thus, 1764 patients (arterial ischemic stroke [AIS], 1526; cerebral sinus venous thrombosis [CSVT], 238) and 2799 control subjects (neonate to 18 years of age) were enrolled. No significant heterogeneity was discerned across studies, and no publication bias was detected. A statistically significant association with first stroke was demonstrated for each thrombophilia trait evaluated, with no difference found between AIS and CSVT. Summary ORs (fixed-effects model) were as follows: antithrombin deficiency, 7.06 (95% CI, 2.44 to 22.42); protein C deficiency, 8.76 (95% CI, 4.53 to 16.96); protein S deficiency, 3.20 (95% CI, 1.22 to 8.40), factor V G1691A, 3.26 (95% CI, 2.59 to 4.10); factor II G20210A, 2.43 (95% CI, 1.67 to 3.51); MTHFR C677T (AIS), 1.58 (95% CI, 1.20 to 2.08); antiphospholipid antibodies (AIS), 6.95 (95% CI, 3.67 to 13.14); elevated lipoprotein(a), 6.27 (95% CI, 4.52 to 8.69), and combined thrombophilias, 11.86 (95% CI, 5.93 to 23.73). In the 6 exclusively perinatal AIS studies, summary ORs were as follows: factor V, 3.56 (95% CI, 2.29 to 5.53); and factor II, 2.02 (95% CI, 1.02 to 3.99). CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis indicates that thrombophilias serve as risk factors for incident stroke. However, the impact of thrombophilias on outcome and recurrence risk needs to be further investigated.
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 | 0.021 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".