Abstract WP185: Cryptogenic Stroke and Patent Foramen Ovale: Posterior Circulation Strokes Are More Common In Men Than In Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Stroke databanks have consistently found a high ratio of anterior circulation (AC) to posterior circulation (PC) strokes without significant differences when compared for vascular risk factors, stroke etiology, treatments and outcome. One study suggested that there was a deviation from this consistent observation when comparing men and women with cryptogenic stroke (CS) and patent foramen ovale (PFO). We tested these associations using the RoPE database. Methods The Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE) Study is an international collaboration of 12 merged cohort studies of patients with CS and known PFO status (n=3674). This analysis was restricted to those subjects in the RoPE database with index strokes in the AC or PC (excluding both or unknown) from the 7 databases that had data for CS with, and without, PFO. We compared the effect of sex on infarct location among patients with versus without PFO. We used generalized linear mixed models to examine whether PFO status modified the gender effect on infarct location adjusting for study cohort as a random effect. Results Among cryptogenic stroke patients both with and without PFO, AC strokes were more common (61%) than PC overall (n=1535). Among patients with PFO, PC stroke was higher in men than in women (50% vs. 33%, OR 2.23, 95% CI: 1.58-3.13). This gender effect was attenuated in those without PFO (38% vs. 31%; OR 1.32, 95% CI: 0.98-1.77). The gender-by-PFO-status interaction was significant (p= 0.0224) and was highly consistent across study cohorts. Conclusions These data confirm that males with CS and PFO contravene the otherwise consistent pattern that AC strokes are more commonly observed than PC strokes in stroke populations. The potential mechanisms underlying this interaction between gender and PFO-status remain to be elucidated.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".