The risk factors of CVA in Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to identify the main risk factors of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) in Jordan. Identification of risk factors may help to reduce the incidence of CVA. A form was prepared for data collection which consisted of two parts to gather biodata and the incidence of risk factors. A sample of 200 patients with CVA (60% men) were randomly selected from various areas of Jordan. An age, region distribution, and gender-matched sample were selected to serve as control. Hypertension in the experimental group (66%) was significantly higher than the control group (32%) p < 0.001. Half of the subjects with stroke had diabetes compared to 22% of the control group (p < 0.001). Cardiovascular diseases were found in 29% of subjects with CVA compared to 14% in the control group (p < 0.001). About 27% of the CVA group had hyperlipidemia in comparison to 13% in the controls (p < 0.002). Smokers represented 54% of the experimental group compared to 30% of the control group (p < 0.05). An important finding in the present study was that about half of the selected subjects with strokes were under the age of 60 years. In conclusion, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, hyperlipidemia, and smoking are risk factors for CVA in Jordan.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".