Lower Vitamin D Status Is Associated with an Increased Risk of Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, accumulating evidence has supported the hypothesis that lower vitamin D status is associated with several known risk factors of stroke. However, the relationship between vitamin D and stroke is still uncertain. To explore if there was an association between vitamin D status and the risk of stroke, a systematic review and a meta-analysis were conducted by searching three databases: Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Following the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, the relative risk estimates of all the included studies were pooled together to compare the risk of stroke between the lowest and the highest category of vitamin D. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool were used to assess the risk of bias, and the publication bias was detected by using a funnel plot and Egger's test. Nineteen studies were included and the pooled relative risk was 1.62 (95% CI: 1.34-1.96). Further analysis found that vitamin D status was associated with ischemic stroke (relative risk = 2.45, 95% CI: 1.56-3.86), but not with hemorrhagic stroke (relative risk = 2.50, 95% CI: 0.87-7.15). In conclusion, our meta-analysis supported the hypothesis that lower vitamin D status was associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke. Further studies are required to confirm this association and to explore the association among different subtypes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".