A meta-analysis of stroke risk following herpes zoster infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of herpes zoster (HZ) is increasing and poses a significant health concern to aging populations. Several studies suggest an increased risk of stroke following zoster infection, but the results are conflicting. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if stroke risk is increased following HZ infection. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google scholar, Web of Science, CAB Direct, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Evidence Based Medicine Reviews was conducted for observational studies of adults with HZ infection that examined stroke and TIA risk from January 1, 1966 to May 31, 2016. Adjusted relative risks reported for similar follow-up durations were pooled across studies separately using random-effects inverse variance models. RESULTS: Data were pooled from nine studies. Relative risk for stroke after zoster was 1.78 (95% CI 1.70-1.88) for the first month following herpes zoster, dropping progressively to 1.43 (95% CI 1.38-1.47) after 3 months, to 1.20 (95% CI 1.14-1.26) after 1 year. We found that stroke risk increases by a larger margin during the first month after a herpes zoster ophthalmicus episode: relative risk 2.05 (95% CI 1.82-2.31). The risk remains elevated one year after the acute episode. CONCLUSIONS: Herpes zoster is an established risk factor for increasing the risk of stroke, especially shortly after infection. Vaccination should be encouraged in patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease.
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 | 0.017 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.073 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".