Effect of clopidogrel with aspirin on functional outcome in TIA or minor stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We compared the effect of clopidogrel plus aspirin vs aspirin alone on functional outcome and quality of life in the Clopidogrel in High-risk Patients with Acute Non-disabling Cerebrovascular Events (CHANCE) trial of aspirin-clopidogrel vs aspirin alone after acute minor stroke or TIA. METHODS: Participants were assessed at 90 days for functional outcome using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and quality of life using the EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D). Poor functional outcome was defined as mRS score of 2-6 at 90 days and poor quality of life as EQ-5D index score of 0.5 or less. RESULTS: Poor functional outcome occurred in 254 patients (9.9%) in the clopidogrel-aspirin group, as compared with 299 (11.6%) in the aspirin group (p = 0.046). Poor quality of life occurred in 142 (5.5%) in the clopidogrel-aspirin group and in 175 (6.8%) in the aspirin group (p = 0.06). Disabling stroke at 90 days occurred in 166 (6.5%) in the clopidogrel-aspirin group and in 219 (8.5%) in the aspirin group (p = 0.01). In stratified analysis by subsequent stroke, there was no difference in 90-day functional outcome and quality of life between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with minor stroke or TIA, the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin appears to be superior to aspirin alone in improving the 90-day functional outcome, and this is consistent with a reduction in the rate of disabling stroke in the dual antiplatelet arm. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with acute minor stroke or TIA, clopidogrel plus aspirin compared to aspirin alone improves 90-day functional outcome (absolute reduction of poor outcome 1.70%, 95% confidence interval 0.03%-3.42%).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".