MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027538725 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa011258

A Comparison of Warfarin and Aspirin for the Prevention of Recurrent Ischemic Stroke

2001· article· en· W2027538725 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J.P. Mohr, John L.P. Thompson, Ronald M. Lazar, Bruce Lubotsky Levin, Ralph L. Sacco, Karen L. Furie, J. Philip Kistler, Gregory W. Albers, L. Creed Pettigrew, Harold P. Adams, Christy M. Jackson, Patrick Pullicino

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUniversity of South AlabamaCleveland ClinicCleveland Clinic FoundationHennepin County Medical CenterJohns Hopkins UniversityYale UniversityVanderbilt UniversityWayne State UniversityU.S. Department of Veterans AffairsUniversity of Southern CaliforniaYork UniversityUniversity of Miami
KeywordsMedicineAspirinWarfarinIschemic strokeStroke (engine)EmbolismCardiologyInternal medicineAtrial fibrillationIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite the use of antiplatelet agents, usually aspirin, in patients who have had an ischemic stroke, there is still a substantial rate of recurrence. Therefore, we investigated whether warfarin, which is effective and superior to aspirin in the prevention of cardiogenic embolism, would also prove superior in the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke in patients with a prior noncardioembolic ischemic stroke. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared the effect of warfarin (at a dose adjusted to produce an international normalized ratio of 1.4 to 2.8) and that of aspirin (325 mg per day) on the combined primary end point of recurrent ischemic stroke or death from any cause within two years. RESULTS: The two randomized study groups were similar with respect to base-line risk factors. In the intention-to-treat analysis, no significant differences were found between the treatment groups in any of the outcomes measured. The primary end point of death or recurrent ischemic stroke was reached by 196 of 1103 patients assigned to warfarin (17.8 percent) and 176 of 1103 assigned to aspirin (16.0 percent; P=0.25; hazard ratio comparing warfarin with aspirin, 1.13; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.38). The rates of major hemorrhage were low (2.22 per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 1.49 per 100 patient-years in the aspirin group). Also, there were no significant treatment-related differences in the frequency of or time to the primary end point or major hemorrhage according to the cause of the initial stroke (1237 patients had had previous small-vessel or lacunar infarcts, 576 had had cryptogenic infarcts, and 259 had had infarcts designated as due to severe stenosis or occlusion of a large artery). CONCLUSIONS: Over two years, we found no difference between aspirin and warfarin in the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke or death or in the rate of major hemorrhage. Consequently, we regard both warfarin and aspirin as reasonable therapeutic alternatives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1,175
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207