Sex and Age Interactions and Differences in Outcomes After Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compared to ischemic stroke, sex differences in response to intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) are largely unexplored, and their potential interactions with patient age have not been examined. This study hypothesized that risk for poor outcome is greater in women with increasing age. METHODS AND RESULTS: -Stroke database was used to assess differences between men and women with ICH. Data from 192,826 ICH patients admitted from January 1, 2009 through March 31, 2014 to 1,728 fully participating sites were analyzed using logistic regression to test interactions between age/sex and outcome. RESULTS: In the total study population, 48.9% were women (median age 75; male median age 67). On admission, women over 65 years were less likely to have atrial fibrillation or dyslipidemia, or use antiplatelet therapy or cholesterol reducers, but more likely to suffer worse neurological deficit than men over 65. As age increased, odds of in-hospital mortality increased in both men and women, although the relationship was stronger in men. Odds of combined mortality and discharge to hospice were similar in men and women with increasing age, but odds for discharge to home and independent ambulation at discharge decreased more in women with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for covariates, modest sex differences in early outcomes after ICH were linked to age. While statistically significant, detected interactions should be considered in context. Future study may examine whether sex-based interactions represent biologic or treatment differences, unmeasured covariates, or some combination thereof.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".