Association between Migraine and the Risk of Stroke: A Bayesian Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are still inconsistent results about association between migraine and stroke risk in studies. This paper was to review findings on the association between migraine (with or without aura) and stroke risk. We searched articles in the Embase and PubMed up to January 2021. Two independent reviewers extracted basic data from individual studies using a standardized form. Quality of studies was also assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. We conducted a meta-analysis, both classical and Bayesian approaches. We identified 17 eligible studies with a sample size more than 2,788,000 participants. In the fixed effect model, the results demonstrated that migraine was positively associated with the risk of total stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and ischemic stroke. Nevertheless, migraine was associated with only total stroke in the random effects model (risk ratio (RR) 1.31, 95%CI: 1.06–1.62). The probability that migraine increased total stroke risk was 0.978 (RR 1.31; 95% credible interval (CrI): 1.01–1.72). All types of migraine were not associated with ischemic stroke and hemorrhagic stroke. Under three prior distributions, there was no association between migraine and the risk of ischemic stroke or hemorrhagic stroke. Under the non-informative prior and enthusiastic prior, there was a high probability that migraine was associated with total stroke 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.
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 | 0.052 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".