Cognitive outcomes after acute coronary syndrome: a population based comparison with transient ischaemic attack and minor stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is associated with increased risk of cognitive decline when compared with controls, but case:control studies are subject to selection bias. We therefore compared cognitive outcomes in ACS with transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke, diseases with similar risk factor burden generally considered to be at high risk of cognitive decline. DESIGN: Prospective population based cohort study SETTING: Oxford Vascular Study (OXVASC) carried out within a defined population of 91 000 in Oxfordshire, UK. PATIENTS: 614 in total: 216 ACS, 182 TIA, 216 minor (non-disabling) stroke. OUTCOME MEASURES: Mini-Mental-State-Examination (MMSE), Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status-modified (TICSm), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at 1 and 5 years. RESULTS: Overall risk factor burden was similar across groups but ACS patients had more smoking (27% vs 14%, p<0.001) and less hypertension (45% vs 53%, p<0.01) and atrial fibrillation (6% vs 14%, p<0.001). Cognitive outcomes were worse at 1 year in ACS versus TIA patients: mean±SD MMSE 26.6±2.7 vs 27.6±2.5, p<0.0001; OR=2.14, 95% CI 1.11 to 4.13 for moderate/severe cognitive impairment (MMSE <24) with a similar trend at 5 years, and ACS outcomes were more similar to minor stroke. Memory and language versus frontal/executive subtests were relatively more impaired in ACS than TIA and minor stroke patients. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of cognitive impairment after ACS is similar to minor stroke and higher than TIA with implications for clinical practice including consent and adherence with medication. Differences in cognitive domain performance suggest a greater role for degenerative brain pathology in ACS which may be linked to vascular risk profile and cardiac factors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".