Association between Blood Pressure and Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) represents a serious post-stroke complication with poor cognitive consequences. A vascular consequence after a stroke is that the occurrence and progression of PSCI may be closely related to blood pressure (BP). Thus, we systematically reviewed and performed a meta-analysis of the literature to examine the correlations between BP and PSCI. Methods: We systematically queried databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus, and conducted meta-analyses on studies reporting odds ratios (ORs) related to the association between BP and PSCI. Two authors autonomously assessed all titles, abstracts, and full texts and extracted data following the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the modified Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Results: Meta-analyses incorporated 12 articles comprising a cumulative participant cohort of 21,732 individuals. The quality assessment indicated good in five studies, fair in one study, and poor in six. Through meta-analyses, we found that hypertension, systolic or diastolic BP (SBP or DBP) was significantly associated with PSCI (OR 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18–1.99; p = 0.001, I2 = 66%; OR 1.13, 95% CI, 1.05–1.23; p = 0.002, I2 = 52%; OR 1.38, 95% CI, 1.11–1.72; p = 0.004, I2 = 90%, respectively). In the subgroup analysis, SBP <120 mmHg, 120–139 mmHg, 140–159 mmHg, 160–179 mmHg, and DBP ≥100 mmHg highly predicted the occurrence of PSCI (OR 1.15, p = 0.0003; OR 1.26, p = 0.010; OR 1.15, p = 0.05; OR 1.02, p = 0.009; OR 1.96, p < 0.00001, respectively). However, the predictive effect of BP for PSCI declines when SBP ≥180 mmHg and DBP ≤99 mmHg (p > 0.05). Statistical heterogeneity was moderate to high, and publication bias was detected in SBP for PSCI. Conclusions: Considering the multifactorial etiology of PSCI, it is difficult to conclude that BP is an independent risk factor for PSCI. Given the restricted inclusion of studies, caution is advised when interpreting the findings from this meta-analysis. Subsequent investigations with substantial sample sizes are essential to exploring BP as a prospective target for addressing PSCI. Trial Registration Number: CRD42023437783 from PROSPERO.
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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.069 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".