Fabry's Disease: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study in Young Adults with Cryptogenic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stroke in young adults is etiologically diverse and may represent a diagnostic challenge remaining cryptogenic in one-fourth of cases. Limited information is available on the prevalence of Fabry's disease, a treatable multisystem inherited lysosomal storage disorder, and disability in young patients with cryptogenic stroke. DESIGN AND METHODS: The Canadian Fabry Stroke Screening Initiative (CFSSI) is a prospective multicenter cohort study of young adults (age 18-55) presenting with an ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or intracerebral haemorrhage of unknown etiology to stroke centres across Canada. Diagnosis of Fabry's disease is made by direct DNA analysis of blood samples for α-galactosidase gene mutations or polymorphisms. Demographics, clinical information, and investigations including brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) are collected. Functional neurological assessment includes neurological examination, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) stroke scale, modified Rankin scale, and the Barthel index. A follow-up interview is conducted by telephone or in person approximately six-months after the index stroke/transient ischemic attack/intracerebral haemorrhage to determine patient outcomes, quality of life, and patient use of medications. MAIN OUTCOME: Prevalence of positive DNA mutation or single nucleotide polymorphism screens for Fabry's disease as a proportion of total cryptogenic stroke. Secondary outcomes include incident risk of new or recurrent vascular event at six-months, discharge disposition, disability at six-months as measured by the modified Rankin scale, mean time from symptoms onset to the definite etiological diagnosis, and length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: This study constitutes the first initiative to determine the prevalence of a positive screen for Fabry's disease in young adults with stroke in Canada. Moreover, the Canadian Fabry Stroke Screening Initiative will provide information on recurrent vascular events, disability at six-months (modified Rankin scale), and disposition in this understudied population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".