The impact of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors on the risk of intracranial haemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Observational studies have suggested increased risk of intracranial haemorrhage (ICrH) in patients receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). We sought to clarify the impact of SSRIs on ICrH, accounting for study methodology. Patients and methods A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library from 1960 to December 2017 identified studies comparing SSRIs with control. The outcomes (first-ever and recurrent ICrH) were meta-analysed using a random effects model. Results Twenty-four observational studies and three randomised trials were available for meta-analysis, totalling 4,844,090 patient-years of follow-up. Those receiving SSRIs were more likely to be female (p = 0.01) and have depression (p < 0.001). Compared to controls, SSRI users had a significantly increased risk of ICrH (relative risk (RR) 1.26, 95%CI 1.11–1.42). Although SSRI use was associated with increased ICrH risk in those without previous ICrH (RR 1.31, 95%CI 1.15–1.48), this was not the case in those with previous ICrH (RR 0.95, 95%CI 0.83–1.09). Sensitivity analysis according to the bleeding definition reported demonstrated that although ‘haemorrhagic stroke’ was associated with SSRIs (RR 1.40, 95%CI 1.13–1.72), intracerebral haemorrhage was not (RR 1.11, 95%CI 0.86–1.42). Additional sensitivity analyses demonstrated a stronger association between SSRIs and ICrH in studies with a high (p < 0.001) compared to low risk of bias (p = 0.09) and with retrospective (p < 0.001) compared to prospective (p=0.31) study designs. Discussion Although SSRIs are associated with an increased risk of ICrH, the association is partly accounted for by important biases and other methodological limitations in the available observational data. Conclusion Our findings suggest there is insufficient high-quality data to advise restriction of SSRIs because of concern regarding ICrH risk.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it