MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224310582 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2022.844550

Risk of Stroke Among Different Metabolic Obesity Phenotypes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4224310582 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Miaomiao Meng, Yixin Guo, Zhuoran Kuang, Lingling Liu, Yefeng Cai, Xiaojia Ni

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGuangzhou Municipal Science and Technology BureauGuangzhou UniversityGuangzhou University of Chinese Medicine
KeywordsMedicineOverweightHazard ratioMeta-analysisStroke (engine)Internal medicineObesityProspective cohort studyCohort studyCohortConfidence intervalCochrane Library

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose Overweight/obesity is a modified risk factor for stroke. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of different obesity phenotypes on stroke risk in adults. Methods The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inception to 7 March 2021 to identify the prospective cohort studies investigating stroke risk among different metabolic overweight/obesity phenotypes. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Results A total of eleven prospective cohorts ( n = 5,609,945 participants) were included in the systematic review, nine of which were included in the meta-analysis. All metabolically unhealthy phenotypes had a higher risk of stroke than the metabolically healthy normal-weight phenotypes, including metabolically unhealthy normal weight (HR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.41–1.89, I 2 = 89.74%, n = 7 cohort studies, 1,042,542 participants), metabolically unhealthy overweight (HR = 1.94, 95% CI: 1.58–2.40, I 2 = 91.17%, n = 4 cohort studies, 676,166 participants), and metabolically unhealthy obese (HR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.66–2.40, I 2 = 93.49%, n = 6 cohort studies, 1,035,420 participants) phenotypes. However, no risk of stroke was observed in the populations with metabolically healthy overweight (MHOW) (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.00–1.14, I 2 = 69.50%, n = 5 studies, 4,171,943 participants) and metabolically healthy obese (MHO) (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.99–1.16, I 2 = 54.82%, n = 8 studies, 5,333,485 participants) phenotypes. The subgroup analyses for the MHO studies suggested that the risk of stroke increased only when the MHO participants were mainly females, from North America, and when the World Health Organization standard was applied to define obesity. In the subgroup analysis of the risk of stroke in MHOW, a longer follow-up duration was also associated with a higher risk of stroke. Conclusion The risk of stroke increase for all metabolically unhealthy phenotypes irrespective of the body mass index (BMI). The associated risk of stroke with metabolic health but high BMI shows substantial heterogeneity, which requires future research considering the impact of sex and transition of the metabolic status on the risk of stroke. Systematic Review Registration The study protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (No. CRD42021251021).

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0440.015
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207