C‐reactive protein in the detection of post‐stroke infections: systematic review and individual participant data analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis to explore the role of C-reactive protein (CRP) in early detection or prediction of post-stroke infections. CRP, an acute-phase reactant binds to the phosphocholine expressed on the surface of dead or dying cells and some bacteria, thereby activating complement and promoting phagocytosis by macrophages. We searched PubMed up to May-2015 for studies measuring CRP in stroke and evaluating post-stroke infections. Individual participants' data were merged into a single database. CRP levels were standardized and divided into quartiles. Factors independently associated with post-stroke infections were determined by logistic regression analysis and the additional predictive value of CRP was assessed by comparing areas under receiver operating characteristic curves and integrated discrimination improvement index. Data from seven studies including 699 patients were obtained. Standardized CRP levels were higher in patients with post-stroke infections beyond 24 h. Standardized CRP levels in the fourth quartile were independently associated with infection in two different logistic regression models, model 1 [stroke severity and dysphagia, odds ratio = 9.70 (3.10-30.41)] and model 2 [age, sex, and stroke severity, odds ratio = 3.21 (1.93-5.32)]. Addition of CRP improved discrimination in both models [integrated discrimination improvement = 9.83% (0.89-18.77) and 5.31% (2.83-7.79), respectively], but accuracy was only improved for model 1 (area under the curve 0.806-0.874, p = 0.036). In this study, CRP was independently associated with development of post-stroke infections, with the optimal time-window for measurement at 24-48 h. However, its additional predictive value is moderate over clinical information. Combination with other biomarkers in a panel seems a promising strategy for future studies.
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 | 0.028 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".