Risk of Intracerebral Hemorrhage in Patients With Arterial Versus Cardiac Origin of Cerebral Ischemia on Aspirin or Placebo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients who are anticoagulated after cerebral ischemia have a 19-fold-higher risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) if they had an arterial rather than a cardiac source. To determine whether this excess risk of ICH was due to the underlying disease (cerebral ischemia of arterial versus cardiac origin) or whether it depended on the antithrombotic regimen, we studied the risk of ICH in arterial versus cardiac origin of cerebral ischemia in patients who received aspirin or no antithrombotic drugs. METHODS: Individual patient data of patients who received aspirin or placebo after cerebral ischemia were obtained from 9 clinical trials. Presence of atrial fibrillation was considered evidence of a cardiac source. Otherwise, events were considered of arterial origin. Cox proportional-hazards modeling was used for univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Fifty-four ICHs occurred in 16 625 patient-years in the aspirin-treated patients, and 7 ICHs occurred in 4317 patient-years in those on placebo. After multivariate adjustment for age, sex, current smoking, history of hypertension and diabetes, and aspirin dose (aspirin-treated patients only), the hazard ratio for ICH in patients with an arterial versus a cardiac source was 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 1.82) for aspirin-treated patients and 4.34 (95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 54) for placebo-randomized patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not confirm the previous finding of an excess risk of ICH in patients with cerebral ischemia of arterial origin. Therefore, it seems that having cerebral ischemia of arterial origin by itself is not associated with an increased risk of ICH, but only in combination with high-intensity anticoagulation.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".