Plasma Levels of Protein Z in Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The association between blood levels of protein Z (PZ) and risk of ischemic stroke remains poorly understood. We aimed to assess this potential relationship through a meta-analysis of case–control studies. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Library were searched from April 1984 to April 2019. We selected case–control studies comparing PZ levels in adult patients with ischemic stroke and controls without ischemic stroke. Six case–control studies, with a total of 1,011 ischemic stroke patients and 1,128 controls, were included. Patients in the acute phase of ischemic stroke showed significantly higher levels of PZ compared with patients in the convalescent phase (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.289 mg/L; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.010, 0.569; p = 0.043). No significant differences in PZ levels were found between patients and controls in the acute phase (SMD: −0.059 mg/L; 95% CI: −0.570, 0.452; p = 0.821) or in the convalescent phase of ischemic stroke (SMD: −0.341 mg/L; 95% CI: −0.736, 0.055; p = 0.091). Subgroup analysis indicated that older patients (≥ 50 years old) had lower PZ levels than similarly aged controls. In contrast, when the study groups came from the United States and Australia or Europe no significant differences in PZ levels existed between patients and controls. No association between PZ and ischemic stroke was identified in this meta-analysis. The acute phase of ischemic stroke was associated with higher levels of PZ.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".