Sensorineural hearing loss and risk of stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis study was to clarify the effects of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) on the incidence of stroke. In line with this, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect databases were searched using related keywords and MeSH terms from inception to March 1, 2020. Out of the 1961 initial records, eight cohort studies comprising 4,564,202 participants were included, and their qualities were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Then, the random-effects model was used to pool HR (95% CI) for risk of stroke; and heterogeneity was presented with I 2 index. Subgroup analysis and publication bias tests were performed, and the pooled HR (95% CI) of stroke in SNHL was estimated as 1.31 (1.08, 1.53) for the unadjusted model and 1.33 (1.18, 1.49) for the adjusted model. Subgroup analysis indicates a significantly higher risk of stroke in patients with sudden SNHL (SSNHL) in comparison to age-related HL (ARHL) both in the unadjusted model, [HR = 1.46; 95% CI (1.08, 1.63)] versus [HR = 1.14; 95% CI (0.64, 1.65)], and in the adjusted model, [HR = 1.44; 95% CI (1.15, 1.74)] versus [HR = 1.29; 95% CI (1.24, 1.34)]. Our study showed that patients with SNHL face a higher risk of stroke than those without SNHL. It is necessary to perform hematologic and neurological examinations to help clinicians detect patients who are potentially at risk for stroke.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".