The Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS3) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Small subcortical strokes, also known as lacunar strokes, comprise more than 25% of brain infarcts, and the underlying vasculopathy is the most common cause of vascular cognitive impairment. How to optimally prevent stroke recurrence and cognitive decline in S3 patients is unclear. The aim of the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes study (Trial registration: NCT00059306) is to define strategies for reducing stroke recurrence, cognitive decline, and major vascular events. METHODS: Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes is a randomised, multicentre clinical trial (n = 3000) being conducted in seven countries, and sponsored by the US NINDS/NIH. Patients with symptomatic small subcortical strokes in the six-months before and an eligible lesion on magnetic resonance imaging are simultaneously randomised, in a 2 × 2 factorial design, to antiplatelet therapy--325 mg aspirin daily plus 75 mg clopidogrel daily, vs. 325 mg aspirin daily plus placebo, double-blind--and to one of two levels of systolic blood pressure targets--'intensive' (<130 mmHg) vs. 'usual' (130-149 mmHg). Participants are followed for an average of four-years. Time to recurrent stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic) is the primary outcome and will be analysed separately for each intervention. The secondary outcomes are the rate of cognitive decline and major vascular events. The primary and most secondary outcomes are adjudicated centrally by those unaware of treatment assignment. CONCLUSIONS: Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes will address several important clinical and scientific questions by testing two interventions in patients with recent magnetic resonance imaging-defined lacunar infarcts, which are likely due to small vessel disease. The results will inform the management of millions of patients with this common vascular disorder.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".