Association of socioeconomic status and poststroke cognitive function: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stroke survivors are at high risk of coping with cognitive problems after stroke. In recent decades, the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and health-related outcomes has been a topic of considerable interest. Learning more about the potential impact of SES on poststroke cognitive dysfunction is of great importance. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the association between SES and poststroke cognitive function by quantifying the effect sizes of the existing studies. METHOD: 2024 and the references of relevant reviews. Studies reporting the risk of poststroke cognitive dysfunction as assessed by categorized SES indicators were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality were used to evaluate the study quality. Meta-analyses using fixed-effect models or random-effect models based on study heterogeneity were performed to estimate the influence of SES on cognitive function after stroke, followed by subgroup analyses stratified by study characteristics. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were eligible for this systematic review and meta-analysis. Of which, 19 studies reported poststroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) as the outcome, 13 reported poststroke dementia (PSD), one reported both PSCI and PSD, and one reported vascular cognitive impairment no dementia. The findings showed that individuals with lower SES levels had a higher risk of combined poststroke cognitive dysfunction (odds ratio (OR) = 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.59-2.29), PSCI (OR = 2.09, 95% CI = 1.57-2.78), and PSD (OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.48-2.57). Subgroup analyses stratified by SES indicators demonstrated the protective effects of education and occupation against the diagnoses of combined poststroke cognitive dysfunction, PSCI, and PSD. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke survivors belonging to a low SES are at high risk of poststroke cognitive dysfunction. Our findings add evidence for public health strategies to reduce the risk of poststroke cognitive dysfunction by reducing SES inequalities.
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 | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".