Homocysteine-Lowering Therapy and Stroke Risk, Severity, and Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Elevated total homocysteine is associated with a higher risk of cerebrovascular disease. It is not known whether lowering homocysteine impacts on stroke risk, both in terms of severity and ischemic vs hemorrhagic stroke subtypes. Our aim was to determine whether vitamin therapy reduces the risk of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, as well as stroke-related disability. METHODS: We analyzed stroke outcomes among participants of the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation 2 (HOPE 2) trial that randomized 5522 adults with known cardiovascular disease to a daily combination of 2.5 mg of folic acid, 50 mg of vitamin B6, and 1 mg of vitamin B12, or matching placebo, for 5 years. RESULTS: Among 5522 participants, stroke occurred in 258 (4.7%) individuals during a mean of 5 years of follow-up. The geometric mean homocysteine concentration decreased by 2.2 micromol/L in the vitamin therapy group and increased by 0.80 micromol/L in the placebo group. The incidence rate of stroke was 0.88 per 100 person-years in the vitamin therapy group and 1.15 per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.97). Vitamin therapy also reduced the risk of nonfatal stroke (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95) but did not impact on neurological deficit at 24 hours (P=0.45) or functional dependence at discharge or at 7 days (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.57-1.56). In subgroup analysis, patients aged younger than 69 years, from regions without folic acid food fortification, with higher baseline cholesterol and homocysteine levels, and those not receiving antiplatelet or lipid-lowering drugs at enrollment had a larger treatment benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Lowering of homocysteine with folic acid and vitamins B6 and B12 did reduce the risk of overall stroke, but not stroke severity or disability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".