The Relevance of Living Supports on Antiplatelet Adherence and Trial Participation: The SPS3 Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While living with others has been associated with improved functional outcome after acute stroke, it is unclear if this affects adherence to stroke prevention measures. AIMS: We examined the relationship between living arrangements and adherence to antiplatelet therapy assignment and participation status in an international randomized trial for secondary stroke prevention. METHOD: Antiplatelet therapy adherence, trial retention outcomes, and baseline characteristics for participants enrolled in the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes study were compared between those who lived alone vs. with others (n = 2374). Participant status at end-of-trial was categorized into (1) on assigned antiplatelet, (2) off assigned antiplatelet by participant request, or (3) participant withdrew consent/lost to follow-up. Multivariable multivariate logistic regression was used to identify patient features at entry predictive of participant status at trial end. RESULTS: Living arrangement, alone vs. with other(s), was not significantly associated with participant status. Participants enrolled in the United States/Canada (odds ratio 3.1, confidence intervals 2.0-5.0, vs. Latin America), taking more (7+) prescription medications (odds ratio 1.7, confidence intervals 1.1-2.7, vs. 0-2 medications), and scoring lower on the Stroke Specific Quality of Life scale (odds ratio 1.3, confidence intervals 1.1-1.5, per 10 points) were more likely to withdraw or become lost to follow-up in the study vs. completing the study on assigned antiplatelet therapy. Participants enrolled in the United States/Canada (odds ratio 5.0, confidence intervals 2.4-10.0, vs. Latin America) and taking fewer (0-2) medications (odds ratio 1.9, confidence intervals 1.2-3.1 vs. 3-6 medications) were more likely to request discontinuation of assigned antiplatelet medication vs. completing the study. CONCLUSION: Living with others was not independently predictive of protocol adherence in this cohort. Number of medications and Stroke Specific Quality of Life scale score may be more indicative of likelihood of trial participation and acceptance of long-term antiplatelet regimen.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".