MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408156492 · doi:10.3390/neurosci6010021

Association Between Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4408156492 on OpenAlex

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

VenueNeuroSci · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryStroke (engine)MedicineInternal medicineCochrane LibraryHazard ratioSubgroup analysisMeta-analysisOdds ratioConfidence intervalPhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Stroke and traumatic brain injury (TBI) represent two major health concerns worldwide. There is growing evidence suggesting a potential association between TBI and stroke. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to explore the association between TBI and stroke risk, with a specific focus on overall stroke risk and subgroup variations based on stroke type, severity, and the post-TBI time period. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies exploring the link between stroke and TBI. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software was used for the analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on stroke type, TBI severity, and post-TBI phase. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was utilized for the quality assessment. Results: We included a total of 13 observational studies, with data from 8 studies used for quantitative analysis. A history of TBI was associated with a significantly higher odds of stroke compared to controls (HR = 2.3, 95% CI (1.79 to 2.958), p < 0.001). The risk was greater for hemorrhagic stroke (HR = 4.8, 95% CI (3.336 to 6.942), p < 0.001) than for ischemic stroke (HR = 1.56, 95% CI (1.28 to 1.9), p < 0.001). Both moderate-to-severe TBI (HR = 3.64, 95% CI (2.158 to 6.142), p < 0.001) and mild TBI (HR = 1.81, 95% CI (1.17 to 2.8), p = 0.007) were associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke. The risk was also higher in the early post-TBI phase (1–30 days) (HR = 4.155, 95% CI (2.25 to 7.67), p < 0.001) compared to later phases (HR = 1.68, 95% CI (1.089 to 2.59), p = 0.019) from 30 days to 1 year and (HR = 1.87, 95% CI (1.375 to 2.544), p < 0.001) after 1 year. Conclusions: This systematic review confirms a significant association between TBI and an increased risk of stroke, regardless of TBI severity, type, or timing of stroke. The findings highlight the need for early monitoring and advocating preventive strategies for stroke in patients with a history of TBI.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.217 · 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