MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406993870 · doi:10.1161/str.56.suppl_1.tp269

Abstract TP269: Prognostic Value of Elevated D-Dimer in Cancer-Associated Ischemic Stroke – a Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4406993870 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle Carole Roy, Yu Hao, Claire M. Wells, Faizan Khan, Candice C. Poon, Michael D. Hill, Andrew M. Demchuk, Philip Wells, Ronda Lun

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Meta-analysisInternal medicineIschemic strokeCancerD-dimerCardiologyOncologyIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients with active cancer and ischemic stroke have significantly higher morbidity and mortality compared to stroke patients without cancer. Elevated d-dimer levels are a key finding for determining cancer coagulopathy as the likely etiology for stroke. Studies that examined d-dimer as a surrogate marker of outcomes in cancer-associated stroke are limited by small sample sizes. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review&meta-analysis for the prognostic value of serum d-dimer measured at the time of ischemic stroke in cancer patients. We hypothesize that high d-dimer is associated with high rates of recurrent stroke, death,&poor functional outcomes. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science were searched (until July 2024) for cohort studies of patients with cancer-associated ischemic stroke that assessed the prognostic value of elevated d-dimer levels (measured at the time of stroke onset) for recurrent stroke, mortality, and poor functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score of 3-6). For the primary analysis, we conducted meta-analyses of median differences in d-dimer levels between patients with vs. without the outcomes of interest, using the random-effects method. Meta-analyses of studies reporting odds ratios or hazard ratios could not be performed due to the variable d-dimer cutoffs used across the studies; associations from these studies are summarized narratively. Results: From 4522 titles, there were 19 eligible studies. Elevated serum d-dimer was significantly associated with an increased risk of recurrent stroke (pooled median difference 14.54 [95% CI, 2.09 to 26.99], p=0.022), and mortality (pooled median difference, 11.18 [95% CI, 9.67 to 12.70], p<0.001) . There was no association between d-dimer level and poor functional outcome (pooled median difference, 0.76 [95% CI, -1.71 to 3.24], p=0.55; Figure 1). The forest plot for individual studies studying mortality is shown in Figure 2; visual inspection suggests that those with higher d-dimer levels have higher risks of mortality. Conclusion: Elevated serum d-dimer measured at the time of ischemic stroke onset in patients with active cancer may identify those at high risk of recurrent stroke and mortality, though our study is limited by the small number of pooled studies and low individual study sample sizes. Nevertheless, they could support routine clinical use of d-dimer to identify high-risk patients for enrolment in secondary prevention trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.031
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207