Comparison of Clinical, Radiological and Outcome Characteristics of Ischemic Strokes in Different Vascular Territories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ischemic strokes are usually characterized by their etiology and the affected brain territory defined by the vascular supply. Strokes located within posterior circulation are considered by some as a condition with high morbidity and mortality. Recent findings suggest that stroke etiologies of posterior circulation strokes (PCS) and anterior circulation strokes (ACS) are more alike than dissimilar, suggesting that PCS deserve same investigations as ACS. The clinical and radiological characteristics and outcome between patients with PCS and ACS were compared. Methods: Two hundred and twenty-two consecutive ischemic stroke patients with ACS and 81 patients with PCS were prospectively analysed. Results: Patients with ACS and PCS did not differ in terms of demographic characteristics. Mean age in ACS group was 65 yrs and PCS group was 60 yrs. Prevalence of vascular risk factors like hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, coronary artery disease, smoking, past history of stroke/TIA did not differ in two groups except for hypertension. The mean National Institute of Health Stroke score (NIHSS) at admission was 11 in ACS and 8 in PCS (P = 0.04). Brain imaging revealed pathological findings more in ACS group than PCS (CT, 72% vs. 67%; MRI, 90% vs. 80%). Cardioembolic stroke was more frequently seen in ACS than PCS (11% vs. 6%). IV thrombolysis was done in 9 patients with ACS and 3 patients with PCS. The proportion of patients with good clinical outcome (modified Rankin score 0 - 2) was similar in ACS and PCS (43% vs. 46% respectively, P = 0.46). Conclusions: Demographic characteristics, etiology and outcome are more alike than different in posterior circulation strokes and anterior circulation strokes. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/jnr229w
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".