MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: incidence, risk factors, and pathogenesis - a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3121798015 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpen peer reviewMedicinePathogenesisIncidence (geometry)Stroke (engine)Meta-analysisPlant biologyDiseaseIschemic strokeCoronavirusCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)BioinformaticsImmunologyPathologyInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)IschemiaBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background</ns4:bold> : In this study, we aimed to determine the global prevalence, chronological order of symptom appearance, and mortality rates with regard to hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to discuss possible pathogeneses of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke in individuals with the disease. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods</ns4:bold> : We searched the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for relevant articles published up to November 8, 2020. Data regarding study characteristics, hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic stroke, and COVID-19 were retrieved in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the eligible studies. The pooled prevalence and mortality rate of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke were calculated. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results</ns4:bold> : The pooled estimate of prevalence of hemorrhagic stroke was 0.46% (95% CI 0.40%–0.53%; <ns4:italic> I <ns4:sup>2</ns4:sup> </ns4:italic> =89.81%) among 67,155 COVID-19 patients and that of ischemic stroke was 1.11% (95% CI 1.03%–1.22%; <ns4:italic> I <ns4:sup>2</ns4:sup> </ns4:italic> =94.07%) among 58,104 COVID-19 patients. Ischemic stroke was more predominant (incidence: 71.58%) than hemorrhagic stroke (incidence: 28.42%) in COVID-19 patients who experienced a stroke. In COVID-19 patients who experienced a stroke, hospital admission with respiratory symptoms was more commonly reported than that with neurological symptoms (20.83% for hemorrhagic stroke and 5.51% for ischemic stroke versus <ns4:italic/> 6.94% for hemorrhagic stroke and 5.33% for ischemic stroke, respectively). The pooled mortality rate of COVID-19 patients who experienced a hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke was 44.72% (95% CI 36.73%–52.98%) and 36.23% (95% CI 30.63%–42.24%), respectively. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions</ns4:bold> : Although the occurrence of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke is low, the mortality rates of both stroke types in patients with COVID-19 are concerning, and therefore, despite several potential pathogeneses that have been proposed, studies aimed at definitively elucidating the mechanisms of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke in individuals with COVID-19 are warranted. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>PROSPERO registration:</ns4:bold> CRD42020224470 (04/12/20) </ns4:p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it