Serum CRP Concentrations and Severity of Ischemic Stroke Subtypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate if elevated C reactive protein (CRP) was related to the stroke severity, and to analyze its different distribution in stroke subtypes. METHODS: 316 patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) were enrolled and had CRP determinations; they were dichotomized as<7 or ≥7mg/L according to the previous report. 128 patients with transient ischemic attack who also had CRP measurements were selected as controls. A possible level-risk relationship between elevated CRP and NIHSS, which considered relatively severe illness as a value≥8, was studied within the AIS group. RESULTS: CRP was elevated in 21% of the AIS compared to 4% in the control group (p = 0.000). Within the AIS group, patients with CRP levels ≥7mg/L had a significantly increased risk of severe stroke (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.84-6.00, p =0.00). In subtype stroke, the highest rate of elevated CRP and NIHSS were in those with cardioembolic stroke (CE) using TOAST classification, total anterior circulation infarction (TACI) of OCSP classification and large volume infarction (LVI) of Adams classification; the odds ratio(OR) between elevated CRP and NIHSS was 6.14 (95% CI 1.43-26.44) in CE, 1.714 (95% CI 1.30-2.26) in TACI, 2.32 (95% CI 1.08-4.99) in LVI, and the p value were all below 0.05. CONCLUSION: Elevated CRP level can reflect the severity of AIS, which was association with stroke subtype.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".