Transient global amnesia recurrence: prevalence and risk factor meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background TGA is an acute amnestic disorder with unclear pathophysiology. Although considered a benign phenomenon, the possibility of a recurrence is a major concern for the patient and their relatives. Our aim is: to identify the prevalence of transient global amnesia (TGA) recurrence and risk factors for it, to help clinicians counsel patients about it. Method According to PRISMA guidance, we screened 1658 studies from MEDLINE, Lilacs and Embase databases, published from 1985 to April 2021, in English or Spanish. We included 36 observational case‐control and cohort studies that included patients with TGA according to Caplan’s or Hodges and Warlow’s diagnostic criteria. We performed a meta‐analysis with a random effect model for proportions and calculation of odds ratio for identified risk factors. Methodological quality was assessed according to the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. Result We identified 4514 TGA and 544 recurrence events (12.73%). Follow‐up had no impact on its variance. We identified a significant association between recurrence and sexual activity as a trigger, personal history of migraine and depression (OR 1,481 95%CI [1,0341; 2,1222] p = 0,04; OR = 2,0795 IC95% [1,3892; 3,1128] p = 0,003; and OR = 4,487195%CI[1,890; 10,651] p = 0,0288, respectively). Conclusions The analysis showed that about 1 out of 8 subjects may have recurrence, with an increased risk in case of history of migraine, depression or sexual intercourse prior to the event. Personal history of migraine and depression are associated with two and four times risk, with cortical spreading depression as a possible pathophysiological mechanism.
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 | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".