Could stroke trigger be prevented by healthy family relationships?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although major stroke risk factors are well documented, little is known about which life circumstances are perceived to be related to the actual triggering of a first stroke. The purpose was to explore self-perceived spontaneously related life circumstances surrounding the trigger of a first stroke. A qualitative design with a phenomenological orientation was used. Nine individuals with a first stroke and less than 80 years of age were purposely recruited in 2 weeks after the stroke onset. An interview guide developed by experts was used. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and data analysis followed a rigorous process including team validation. All participants had in common a spontaneous reference to a family conflict regarding a specific event they tended to avoid surrounding the trigger of the stroke, which was temporarily resolved after the stroke onset. Essential themes emerging from the data refer to symbols such as a big heart and money issues as well as ambivalent feelings of responsibility, and guilt regarding social roles such as being a spouse or parent. This study provides a deeper understanding of the positive consequences the stroke had in temporarily resolving some family conflicts tainted by a lack of transparency and honesty regarding ambivalent feelings. Further exploration is needed as secondary prevention and health promotion campaigns could specifically target healthy transparent and honest family relationships as a potential protective factor against triggering a stroke, if these results are confirmed in future studies.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".