Stroke risk among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased stroke risk among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients has not yet been established. In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess stroke risk among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from database inception until December 31, 2016 to identify longitudinal observational studies that investigated the association between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and stroke. Stroke risk was quantified by overall and subgroup analyses, and a pooled hazard ratio was calculated. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Publication bias was assessed using Begg's rank correlation test. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. In a random-effects model, significantly increased stroke risk was observed among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.43). In subgroup analyses stratified by stroke subtype, study quality, and adjustment by socioeconomic status, the association between increased stroke risk and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients was robust. Statistically significant publication bias was not detected. In summary, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was found to be associated with increased stroke risk. Additional prospective studies are required to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the increase in stroke risk and identify effective preventive interventions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".