Abstract T P313: Sex-age Interactions and Differences in Outcomes After Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Compared to ischemic stroke, sex differences in outcomes after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) are largely unexamined. Methods: In the Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)-Stroke database, differences between men and women with ICH were assessed. Data from 192,826 patients with ICH admitted between January 1, 2009 and March 31, 2014 to 1,728 AHA-GWTG-Stroke fully-participating sites were analyzed. Logistic regression was used to assess age and sex interaction with respect to outcomes while adjusting for potential confounders. Due to missing stroke severity data in 52.5% of patients, models were performed with and without adjusting for NIHSS. Results: In the total study population, 48.9% were women (median age 75 years; male median age 67 years). On admission, women with ICH had lower creatinine and were less likely to smoke than men, and women over 65 years of age were less likely to have atrial fibrillation or dyslipidemia, use antiplatelets or cholesterol-reducers, but more likely to have higher admission NIHSS than men over 65 years. In the primary model, as age increased, odds for combined mortality and discharge to hospice were similar for men and women, but odds for discharge to home and independent ambulation at discharge increased more in men, with significant sex-age interactions (See Table). In the subset with NIHSS, similar adjusted sex differences were seen for mortality and length of stay but were non-significant for discharge to home and independent ambulation. Conclusions: After ICH, men experience higher odds of discharge to home and independent ambulation for each 10-year increase in age compared to women, after adjusting for covariates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".