Epidemiology, thrombolytic management, and outcomes of acute stroke among patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relative frequency of ischaemic versus haemorrhagic stroke among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) has not been clearly described. Moreover, no recent meta-analysis has investigated the outcomes of patients with CKD treated with thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the proportion of stroke subtypes and the outcomes of thrombolysis in CKD. METHODS: A PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane literature research was conducted. The primary outcome was the proportion and incidence of ischaemic versus haemorrhagic strokes among patients with CKD. In addition, we assessed the impact of CKD on disability, mortality and bleeding among patients with acute ischaemic stroke treated with thrombolysis. The pooled proportion and the risk ratio were estimated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Thirty-nine observational studies were included: 22 on the epidemiology of stroke types and 17 on the outcomes of thrombolysis in this population. In the main analysis (>99 281 patients), ischaemic stroke was more frequent than haemorrhagic among patients with CKD [78.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 73.3-82.5%]. However, among patients with kidney failure, the proportion of ischaemic stroke decreased and was closer to that of haemorrhagic stroke (59.8%, 95% CI 49.4-69.4%). CKD was associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients with acute ischaemic stroke compared with patients with preserved kidney function. CONCLUSIONS: The relative frequency of haemorrhagic stroke seems to increase as kidney function declines. Among patients with acute ischaemic stroke treated with thrombolysis, presence of CKD is associated with higher disability, mortality and bleeding, compared with patients with preserved kidney function.
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".