MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4397010895 · doi:10.31083/j.rcm2505174

Association between Blood Pressure and Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment: A Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4397010895 on OpenAlex
Huifen Huang, Yanli Zhan, Linling Yu, Shan Li, Xueli Cai

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

VenueReviews in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisConfidence intervalStroke (engine)Internal medicineBlood pressureOdds ratioCochrane LibrarySubgroup analysisObservational study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.018
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.281 · 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