ArticleScientific reports2025
Understanding the role of hypertension in stroke outcomes using Bayesian analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Epidemiology, outcomes of treatment, and survival of cervical cancer in Kazakhstan: a nationwide population-based study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A comorbid hypertension was previously associated with survival advantages in patients with stroke. We aimed to explore how strong priors for the hypertension covariate affect the reverse association, as a way to test the sensitivity of reverse epidemiology findings to bias assumptions. The authors used stroke data from 2014 to 2019 (N = 177,947) and subsequently performed random sampling from a population of various sizes. The data were analyzed using Bayesian multiple logistic mixed-effects regression, which was further modelled in three scenarios: with informative (strong) priors, non-informative priors, and accounting for the interaction mechanism (age*hypertension). In addition, we perform a series of sensitivity analyses to check the robustness of the estimates to different prior choices. Both informative and non-informative priors demonstrated elevated posterior odds ratios (ORs) for hypertension in low sample fractions (n = 100-500). As the sample size increased, the ORs declined (below 1) for each subsequently larger samples. The ORs plateaued as the sample exceeded 5000 and became similar for both the modeling scenarios. Conversely, the interaction term revealed inverse patterns, increasing in effect as the sample size grew large. Thus, the reverse effect of hypertension diminishes with age. Although further modifications of prior precision revealed somewhat higher ORs for hypertension covariate, the estimates mostly overlapped. Bayesian analysis may improve the interpretation of reverse associations when data are limited; however, in large datasets, their influence diminishes. This pattern suggests that reverse associations reflect collider or selection bias rather than prior choice and that Bayesian priors alone cannot address design bias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.