Risk of Stroke and Myocardial Infarction After Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives/Hypothesis The pathophysiology of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is still unknown, but labyrinthine artery infarction has been proposed. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and conduct a meta‐analysis assessing the risk of developing stroke and myocardial infarction after presentation with ISSNHL. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Libraries. All studies investigating an association between ISSNHL and stroke and/or myocardial infarction (MI) were included. Adhering to the MOOSE guideline, two independent reviewers extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated the relevance and quality of evidence. Results Three observational studies evaluating the risk of stroke in ISSNHL were included (n = 6,521 patients). All individual study results indicated an increased relative risk of stroke after ISSNHL (unadjusted relative risk range 1.21–1.63). Pooled adjusted hazard ratios revealed a 1.42‐fold increased risk of stroke after ISSNHL (hazard ratio [HR] 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15–1.75, I2 = 55%). Subgroup analysis of one study demonstrated that the increased risk is only present in adults aged above 50 years (HR 1.23; 95% CI 1.07–1.42). Five observational studies evaluating the risk of MI in patients with ISSNHL were included (n = 61,499 patients). Pooled analyses demonstrated that ISSNHL was not associated with MI (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.87–1.34). Conclusion ISSNHL may be an independent risk factor for the subsequent development of stroke especially in a subgroup of elderly patients. More studies are needed to confirm this association and to assess whether such patients would benefit from cardiovascular risk assessment and management to prevent future strokes. Laryngoscope, 131:1369–1377, 2021
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".