Sex Differences in the Presentation, Care, and Outcomes of Transient Ischemic Attack
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Little is known about whether sex differences exist in the presentation, management, and outcomes of transient ischemic attack. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of 5991 consecutive patients with transient ischemic attack admitted to 11 stroke centers in Ontario, Canada, between July 1, 2003, and March 31, 2008 and compared presenting symptoms, processes of care, and outcomes in women and men. We used linkages to administrative databases to evaluate mortality and recurrent vascular events within 30 days and 1 year of the initial presentation, with multivariable analyses to assess whether sex differences persisted after adjustment for age and comorbid conditions. RESULTS: The most common presenting symptoms for both sexes were weakness, speech impairment, and sensory deficit, with headache being slightly more frequent in women. Women were less likely than men to undergo carotid imaging, carotid endarterectomy, or receive lipid-lowering therapy. One-year mortality was slightly lower in women than in men (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: We found only minor sex differences in the presentation and management of transient ischemic attack, suggesting that current public awareness campaigns focusing on classic warning signs are appropriate for both women and men. Future work should focus on evaluating whether lower rates of carotid imaging, endarterectomy, and lipid-lowering therapy in women reflect undertreatment of women or are appropriate based on patient eligibility.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".