Risk of ischaemic stroke in people with migraine: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between migraine and risk of ischaemic stroke. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Observational studies published between 1966 and June 2004 (identified through Medline and Embase) that examined the association between migraine and risk of ischaemic stroke. RESULTS: 14 studies (11 case-control studies and 3 cohort studies) were identified. These studies suggest that the risk of stroke is increased in people with migraine (relative risk 2.16, 95% confidence interval 1.89 to 2.48). This increase in risk was consistent in people who had migraine with aura (relative risk 2.27, 1.61 to 3.19) and migraine without aura (relative risk 1.83, 1.06 to 3.15), as well as in those taking oral contraceptives (relative risk 8.72, 5.05 to 15.05). CONCLUSIONS: Data from observational studies suggest that migraine may be a risk factor in developing stroke. More studies are needed to explore the mechanism of this potential association. In addition, the risk of migraine among users of oral contraceptives must 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 | 0.016 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".