MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7155545382 · doi:10.2196/90248

Risk Factors Related to the Incidence of Stroke-Associated Pneumonia in Adults: A Scoping Review Protocol (Preprint)

2025· article· en· W7155545382 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ana Karolina Ibanhes, Pryscilla Kathiana Maia Freitas da Silveira Redigolo, Anna Alicia Pereira Duarte, Anna Letícia Pereira Duarte, Carolina Mariano Pompeo

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)Protocol (science)PneumoniaRisk factorRisk assessmentMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cerebrovascular diseases represent a major public health challenge, and stroke is among the leading causes of mortality worldwide. Among poststroke complications, pneumonia stands out because of its frequency and negative impact on clinical outcomes, including prolonged hospitalization and increased mortality. In this context, studies investigating the risk factors associated with stroke-related pneumonia differ in terms of their design, care setting, and adopted definitions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to map risk factors related to the incidence of pneumonia in adults hospitalized after stroke. METHODS: This scoping review protocol was developed in accordance with the JBI Reviewer's Manual and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). Searches will include the following indexed databases: PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and the Virtual Health Library. Gray literature will be searched in Google Scholar, the CAPES Theses and Dissertations Catalog, the Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, ProQuest, SciELO Preprints, medRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials. Additional organizational sources will include the World Health Organization, the Pan American Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the European Stroke Organisation, and the Brazilian Ministry of Health. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies, including observational and experimental designs, will be considered, with no language or time restrictions, provided that they meet the eligibility criteria defined in the protocol. Study selection will follow 3 stages using Mendeley (Elsevier) and Rayyan (Rayyan Systems Inc). RESULTS: This protocol was funded in June 2026 by the Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Finance Code 001). The protocol was developed and prospectively registered in the Open Science Framework. Preliminary searches were carried out in August 2025 in PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and the Cochrane Library to test the sensitivity of the search strategies and estimate the potential volume of eligible studies. At the time of publication, the final search, study selection, data extraction, and evidence synthesis had been completed. The manuscript reporting the final review results is expected to be submitted for publication in early 2027. CONCLUSIONS: This review is expected to contribute to the systematization of evidence on risk factors related to stroke-associated pneumonia, identify knowledge gaps, and support future prevention strategies and clinical management of hospitalized patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework 10.17605/OSF.IO/EXYWZ; https://osf.io/exywz/overview. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/90248.

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)0.123
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.233
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1230.233
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.014
Bibliometrics0.0160.013
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.009

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.615
Teacher spread0.473 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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 abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207