MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281690014 · doi:10.3390/neurolint14020040

Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome in the Postpartum Period: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4281690014 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kimberly A. O. Pacheco, Juan Fernando Ortíz, Jashank Parwani, Claudio Cruz, Mario Yépez, Maja Buj, Mahika Khurana, Diego Ojeda, Alisson Iturburu, Alex S. Aguirre, Ray Yuen, Shae Datta

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology International · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological Complications and Syndromes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad San Francisco de Quito
KeywordsMedicineReversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndromeSubarachnoid hemorrhageObservational studyPostpartum periodSystematic reviewPediatricsEpidemiologyPregnancyMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(1) Background: Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) encompasses a clinical and radiological diagnosis characterized by recurrent thunderclap headache, with or without focal deficits due to multifocal arterial vasoconstriction and dilation. RCVS can be correlated to pregnancy and exposure to certain drugs. Currently, the data on prevalence of RCVS in the postpartum period is lacking. We aim to investigate the prevalence of RCVS in the postpartum period and the rate of hemorrhagic complications of RCVS among the same group of patients; (2) Methods: We conducted the metanalysis by using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) protocol. To analyze the Bias, we used the Ottawa Newcastle scale tool. We included only full-text observational studies conducted on humans and written in English. We excluded Literature Reviews, Systematic Reviews, and Metanalysis. Additionally, we excluded articles that did not document the prevalence of RCVS in the postpartum period (3). Results: According to our analysis, the Prevalence of RCVS in the postpartum period was 129/1083 (11.9%). Of these, 51/100 (52.7%) patients had hemorrhagic RCVS vs. 49/101 (49.5%) with non-hemorrhagic RCVS. The rates of Intracerebral Hemorrhage (ICH) and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH) were (51.6% and 10.7%, respectively. ICH seems to be more common than.; (4) Conclusions: Among patients with RCVS, the prevalence in PP patients is relativity high. Pregnant women with RCVS have a higher recurrence of hemorrhagic vs. non-hemorrhagic RCVS. Regarding the type of Hemorrhagic RCVS, ICH is more common than SAH among patients in the postpartum period. Female Sex, history of migraine, and older age group (above 45) seem to be risk factors for H-RCVS. Furthermore, recurrence of RCVS is associated with a higher age group (above 45). Recurrence of RCVS is more commonly idiopathic than being triggered by vasoactive drugs in the postpartum period.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.029
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.235 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations26
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology InternationalSame topicNeurological Complications and SyndromesFrench-language works237,207