Evaluation of the Effects of Aspirin and Warfarin Use on the Volume of Intracranial Non-Traumatic Hemorrhage and Mortality Rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To evaluate the effects of aspirin and warfarin use on the volume of intracranial hemorrhage and mortality rates. Methods: The patients using aspirin and warfarin with intracranial non-traumatic hemorrhage were enrolled the study. Control group included the patients with intracerebral non-traumatic hemorrhage but not using any oral antiaggregant or anticoagulant agent. This is an open, prospective and controlled study. In the statistical analysis, chi-square test, T test, non-parametrical Mann Whitney U test, and Pearson’s coefficient of correlation were used. Results: Total 104 hospitalized patients with intracranial hemorrhage were enrolled to the study, 47 (45%) of them were using aspirin or warfarin and 57 (55%) were not using. Mean age was 66.5 ( ± 12.04), 38 patients (36.5%) were using aspirin and 9 (8.65%) were using warfarin. At the end of eight months 10 (26.3%) patients using aspirin, 5 patients (55.6%) using warfarin, and 16 (26%) patients in the control group died. There was a statistically important difference between patients using aspirin / warfarin and control group (P 0.05) in the hemorrhage volume. Aspirin or warfarin use did not have any effect on mortality rates (P > 0.05). Hemorrhages with ventricular extension did not have any significant effect on hemorrhage volume or mortality rate. Conclusion: Aspirin and warfarin use increases hemorrhage volume in a statistically significant ratio, however no significant effect on mortality rate. doi:10.4021/jnr100w
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".