Evidence of Stroke in Glaucoma Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background As the communal cause of irreversible vision loss in seniors, glaucoma affects more than 67 million people worldwide. Those who suffer from glaucoma have traditionally demonstrated a higher rate of developing stroke. Numerous studies have investigated the relationship between glaucoma and increased stroke risks, but they differ wildly in conclusive findings. To better elucidate the overall findings of the collective studies, a systematic review with the objective of determining the relationship between glaucoma and an increased risk of stroke. Methods A systematic database search including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library as well as unpublished literature was done. Distiller SR, a systematic review software was utilized. After two levels of screening, “Title and Abstract” and “Full text” screening, risk of bias assessment and extraction of the data from the included articles were conducted. STATA 14.0 was used to conduct the meta-analysis. The hazard ratio (HR) was the primary outcome measure. Results Nine studies (376,650 subjects) were included in the analysis. Results indicated a significant hazard of stroke in patients with open-angle glaucoma (HR = 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.08, 1.71]), normal-tension glaucoma (HR = 6.34, 95% CI: [4.8, 8.38]), and neovascular glaucoma (HR = 2.07; CI: [1.41, 3.03]). Studies examining risks of stroke development showed a significant increase in the relative risks (RR) of developing stroke for those with glaucoma (RR = 2.10, CI: [1.64, 2.68]). Conclusions The hazard of developing stroke could be greater for patients with glaucoma. However, randomized controlled trials with longer-term follow-ups need to be conducted in the future in order to make strong conclusions.
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 | 0.013 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".