Association between late‐life depression or depressive symptoms and stroke morbidity in elders: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Whether late-life depression or depressive symptoms are a risk factor of future stroke in elders is important for prevention measures. A systematic review and meta-analysis were used to investigate the association between depression or depressive symptoms and risk of stroke in elders. METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and Web of Science were searched for studies published from inception to January 6, 2023. Prospective cohort studies reporting quantitative estimates of the association between depression or depressive symptoms and stroke morbidity in participants aged over 60 years were included. Reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, retrospective, cross-sectional, and theoretical studies were excluded. Study screening and data extraction were conducted by two researchers independently. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). Publication bias was evaluated via the symmetry of funnel plots and Egger tests. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. The quality of evidence of synthesis was assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The primary outcome was any stroke, including non-fatal, fatal, ischemic and hemorrhagic sub-types. RESULTS: Seventeen studies of 57,761 patients in total were included in the meta-analysis. A positive association was found between depressive disorder or symptoms and stroke risk (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.22-1.58; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Late-life depression or depressive symptoms are a significant risk factor for stroke in older people. Regular assessment and more effective management of associated comorbidities are recommended to reduce stroke risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".