MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042978964 · doi:10.1159/000074915

POLymorphisms and Risk of Ischemic Stroke (POLARIS) Study: Rationale and Design

2003· article· en· W2042978964 on OpenAlexfundno aff
D. Martijn O. Pruissen, L. Jaap Kappelle, Ale Algra

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Neurology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Internal medicineRisk factorFactor V LeidenCohortIschemic strokeIschemiaVascular diseaseThrombosisVenous thrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twin and family-based studies indicate that genetic factors might be involved in the risk of transient ischemic attack (TIA) and ischemic stroke (IS). Identification of genetic risk factors for new vascular events after cerebral ischemia may target secondary prevention. The overall aim of POLARIS is to study which polymorphisms predispose to new vascular events after TIA/IS and to assess their predictive value. Patients who have had a TIA or IS of presumed arterial origin are included. The study design is twofold. In part one the prevalences of polymorphisms will be compared between 300 long-term survivors of the Dutch TIA Trial (average follow-up 10 years) and 820 patients with recent TIA/IS. In part two a cohort of 820 patients with recent TIA/IS will be followed for the occurrence of vascular events for an average of 3.5 years. Several polymorphisms of interest will be genotyped, including factor V Leiden, prothrombin 20210A, 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase, HR2 haplotype factor V and factor XIII Val34Leu.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean NeurologySame topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsFrench-language works237,207