Prevalence and risk factors of stroke in high-altitude areas: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to investigate the prevalence and risk factors of stroke in high-altitude areas through a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. DESIGN: This study adopts a systematic review and meta-analysis design. DATA SOURCES: A thorough search was conducted on databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and SCOPUS, covering the period up to June 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies reporting the prevalence of stroke in high-altitude areas and exploring related risk factors were included, regardless of whether they involved clinical samples or the general population. Studies with incomplete, outdated or duplicate data were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We performed eligibility screening, data extraction and quality evaluation of the retrieved articles. Meta-analysis was employed to estimate the prevalence and risk factors of stroke in high-altitude areas. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies encompassing 8 566 042 participants from four continents were included, with altitudes ranging from 1500 m to nearly 5000 m. The pooled prevalence of stroke in high-altitude areas was found to be 0.5% (95% CI 0.3%-7%). Notably, the prevalence was higher in clinical samples (1.2%; 0.4%-2.5%) compared with the general population (0.3%; 95% CI 0.1%-0.6%). When considering geographic regions, the aggregated data indicated that stroke prevalence in the Eurasia plate was 0.3% (0.2%-0.4%), while in the American region, it was 0.8% (0.4%-1.3%). Age (OR, 14.891), gender (OR, 1.289), hypertension (OR, 3.158) and obesity (OR, 1.502) were identified as significant risk factors for stroke in high-altitude areas. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study provide insights into the pooled prevalence of stroke in high-altitude areas, highlighting variations based on geographic regions and sampling type. Moreover, age, gender, hypertension and obesity were found to be associated with the occurrence of stroke. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022381541.
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 | 0.027 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".