Lacunar Strokes in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: Risk Factors, Infarct Location, and Prognosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Diabetes mellitus is an independent risk factor for lacunar strokes. Few data are available regarding patient features, infarct location, and recurrent vascular events for patients with diabetes mellitus with lacunar stroke. METHODS: We compared features at study entry and prognosis during 3.6 years of follow-up of patients with diabetes mellitus versus patients without diabetes mellitus with recent lacunar stroke participating in the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS3) randomized trial. RESULTS: Among the 3020 participants, the prevalence of diabetes mellitus was 37% with a mean duration of 11 years. Diabetes mellitus was independently associated with slightly younger age (63 versus 64 years; P<0.001), Hispanic ethnicity (36% versus 28%; P<0.0001), ischemic heart disease (11% versus 6%; P=0.002), and peripheral vascular disease (5% versus 2%; P<0.001). Patients with diabetes mellitus more frequently had intracranial stenosis ≥50% (P<0.001), infarcts involving the brain stem or cerebellum (P<0.001), and more extensive white matter abnormalities (P<0.001). Patients with diabetes mellitus were almost twice as likely to have a recurrent stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-2.3), recurrent ischemic stroke (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.4), disabling/fatal stroke (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.9), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.8), and death (HR, 2.1 95% CI, 1.6-2.8) compared with patients without diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with diabetes mellitus with lacunar stroke have a distinctive clinical profile that includes double the prevalence of systemic and intracranial atherosclerosis, preferential involvement of the posterior circulation, and a poor prognosis for recurrent stroke and death. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00059306.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".