[Prevalence of asymptomatic atherothrombotic lesions and risk of vascular events in patients with a stroke].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of asymptomatic atherothrombotic lesions and the absolute risk of vascular events in patients with ischemic stroke. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies published between 1980 and 2004 which allowed calculating prevalence of asymptomatic lesions and absolute risks of vascular events in stroke patients. Studies included in the review of absolute risks had to include at least 100 patients followed for at least 1 year and with less than 5% of lost to follow-up. RESULTS: Coronarography was used in only one study which does not provide any precise estimation of the prevalence of asymptomatic coronary lesions. Depending on the population and the method used for the diagnosis of coronary disease, the prevalence of asymptomatic coronary artery disease ranged from 25 through 60%. Very few studies have been devoted to the prevalence of abdominal aortic disease in stroke patients. The prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysm has been estimated to 1% and that of peripheral arterial disease to 10%. Thirty-six cohorts were identified. The absolute risk of myocardial infarction was about 2%/year and that of vascular death 2%/year. CONCLUSION: Stroke patients carry a high risk of coronary and vascular events. Additional studies are required to better identify patients with a high prevalence of asymptomatic atherosclerotic lesions and with a high risk of vascular events.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".