MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389608127 · doi:10.1016/s2666-7568(23)00217-9

Risk factors for cognitive impairment and dementia after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4389608127 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Healthy Longevity · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStiftung zur Erforschung der Vaskulären DemenzFP7 Coordination of Research ActivitiesGemeinnützige Hertie-StiftungFritz Thyssen StiftungFondation LeducqDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsMeta-analysisDementiaMedicineStroke (engine)Internal medicineSystematic reviewRelative riskRisk factorPhysical therapyMEDLINEDiseaseConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment and dementia are highly prevalent among stroke survivors and represent a major burden for patients, carers, and health-care systems. We studied the risk factors for post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) and dementia (PSD) beyond the well established risk factors of age and stroke severity. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis we conducted a systematic literature search from database inception until Sept 15, 2023. We selected prospective and retrospective cohort studies, post-hoc analyses from randomised controlled trials, and nested case-control studies of patients with acute stroke (ischaemic, haemorrhagic, and transient ischaemic attack), exploring associations between risk factors at baseline and PSCI or PSD over a follow-up period of at least 3 months. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) with random-effects meta-analyses and performed subgroup, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses. This study was preregistered with PROSPERO, CRD42020164959. FINDINGS: We identified 162 eligible articles for our systematic review, of which 113 articles (89 studies, 160 783 patients) were eligible for meta-analysis. Baseline cognitive impairment was the strongest risk factor for PSCI (RR 2·00, 95% CI 1·66-2·40) and PSD (3·10, 2·77-3·47). We identified diabetes (1·29, 1·14-1·45), presence or history of atrial fibrillation (1·29, 1·04-1·60), presence of moderate or severe white matter hyperintensities (WMH; 1·51, 1·20-1·91), and WMH severity (1·30, 1·10-1·55, per SD increase) as treatable risk factors for PSCI, independent of age and stroke severity. For PSD, we identified diabetes (1·38, 1·10-1·72), presence of moderate or severe WMH (1·55, 1·01-2·38), and WMH severity (1·61, 1·20-2·14, per SD increase) as treatable risk factors. Additional risk factors included lower educational attainment, previous stroke, left hemisphere stroke, presence of three or more lacunes, brain atrophy, and low baseline functional status. Associations of risk factors with PSD were weaker in studies conducted and published more recently. We found substantial interstudy heterogeneity and evidence of reporting bias. INTERPRETATION: Our results highlight the importance of cognitive impairment in the acute phase after stroke for long-term prediction of PSCI and PSD. Treatable risk factors include diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and markers of cerebral small vessel disease (ie, white matter hyperintensities and lacunes). Future trials should explore these risk factors as potential targets for prevention of PSCI and PSD. FUNDING: German Research Foundation.

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.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.276 · 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