Lack of aggregation of ischemic stroke subtypes within affected sibling pairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish whether subtypes of ischemic stroke aggregate within ischemic stroke-affected sibling pairs more than expected by chance alone. METHODS: This retrospective family study was based on a pooled analysis of two cohorts of male and female adult sibling pairs with symptomatic ischemic stroke. One hospital-based cohort of 404 individuals (first proband seen August 30, 1999) was recruited from the United States and Canada, and another population-based cohort of 198 individuals (first proband seen April 17, 1997) was recruited from Umeå, Sweden. Subtype diagnoses were based on Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) criteria. RESULTS: Agreement for subtype diagnoses within families was poor (mean +/- asymptotic SE kappa = 0.17 +/- 0.04). Occurrence of one ischemic stroke subtype in a proband was not associated with a greater likelihood of that subtype being the qualifying stroke subtype in the sibling. Comparable levels of agreement were seen when restricting the analysis to same-sex sibling pairs (kappa = 0.22 +/- 0.05) to sibling pairs in which the proband's stroke occurred before the age of 65 years (kappa = 0.16 +/- 0.05) or to pairs in which the proband's stroke occurred at or after the age of 65 years (kappa = 0.19 +/- 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The subtype of ischemic stroke in a proband was a poor determinant of the subtype of ischemic stroke in the respective sibling. This suggests that many genetic risk factors for ischemic stroke may not be specific for one subtype.
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 | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".