New Evidence for Stroke Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Stroke is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and the application of evidence for stroke prevention varies considerably. OBJECTIVE: To review the most recent, high-quality evidence for primary and secondary stroke prevention. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Searches of MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, and the ACP Journal Club were performed to identify English-language articles published from 1998 to 2001 that focused on primary and secondary stroke prevention. The references of each retrieved article were scanned, and experts in the field were contacted to identify additional relevant articles. DATA EXTRACTION: Each of the articles was appraised, and its quality was graded with levels of evidence based on specific scientific methods that affect a study's validity. DATA SYNTHESIS: For primary prevention of stroke, adequate blood pressure reduction, and treatment of hyperlipidemia, use of antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and of antiplatelet therapy in patients with myocardial infarction are effective and supported by evidence from several randomized trials. Effective strategies for the secondary prevention of stroke include treatment of hypertension and hyperlipidemia, antithrombotic therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation, antiplatelet therapy, and carotid endarterectomy in patients with severe carotid artery stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke is a major public health concern, and a significant body of evidence supports many primary and secondary prevention strategies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".