Abstract WP154: Chinese-Canadian Stroke Patients With Diabetes Display Unique Hypertension Profile: A Ten-year Epidemiology Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Significant differences in stroke characteristics were previously discovered to exist between Chinese and Caucasian patients with diabetes mellitus. What remains unknown is if differences in hypertension (HTN) characteristics exist between genders and between the two ethnic groups. METHODS: During 2001-2011, patients of JYC were seen at his Toronto Neurology clinic and at William Osler Health System, Brampton Site. Chinese diabetic stroke patients were selected by last name and birth country; similarly diagnosed European patients were age-sex matched correspondingly. HTN severity grade (HSG) guidelines were obtained from the WHO - [HSG 1: BP>140/90, HSG 2: BP>160/100, HSG 3: BP>180/110]. A stratification table obtained from WHO outlined prognosis using number of risk factors in correspondence to HSG. Data was analyzed for: poor prognosis risk, HSG, and BP values. RESULTS: Mean age of Chinese cohort at the time of stroke diagnosis (n=35) was 68.6 years. Caucasian mean age (n=129) was 68.7 years. The Chinese cohort was less likely than Caucasians to have poor prognosis when classified as low risk (P<0.05). However, a higher proportion of Chinese had poor prognosis than Caucasians when classified as high risk (0.05 CONCLUSION: Significant differences in HTN characteristics exist between the Chinese and Caucasian diabetic stroke community within the Toronto population. Results show that despite Caucasians more likely scoring a high HSG, Chinese diabetic stroke patients seem to have poorer prognosis than Caucasians who were similarly classified to them. Results suggest that Chinese have more concurrent risk factors and indicate significant differences in BP profiles between Caucasians and Chinese diabetic stroke patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".