Comparison of Functional Outcome and Stroke Recurrence in Patients with Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (ESUS) vs. Cardioembolic Stroke Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) recurrence and functional outcome from long-term follow-up is not well delineated. The purpose of this study is to compare these functional variables between ESUS vs. cardioembolic stroke (CS) patients. METHODS: We analyzed data of consecutive ESUS and CS patients from our institutional database, from January 2003 until April 2015. The endpoints were stroke recurrence, mortality and poor clinical outcome (Modified Rankin Score 3-6), at discharge, 6 months and final follow-up. Adjusted multivariate Cox analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the probability of recurrence and death. RESULTS: 149 ESUS (median age 44 years) and 235 CS (median age 66 years) consecutive patients were included in the study. Median follow-up period for the entire sample was 19 months (interquartile range 6.0-45.0 months). Stroke recurrence was similar between ESUS and CS patients (5.4% vs. 9.8% respectively, p = 0.12). Death occurred in 30 CS cases (12.8%), with a cumulative probability of survival of 77%. Poor functional outcome was present in 58.3%, 54.0% and 54.9% at discharge, 6 months and final follow-up respectively in CS patients, significantly worst compared to ESUS cases (HR 3.1; CI 95% 1.96-4.68). Oral anticoagulation presents with a HR 8.01 for recurrence, and antiplatelet therapy had the highest risk for recurrence for both groups (HR 24.3). CONCLUSION: ESUS patients are substantially younger than CS patients but have a stroke recurrence rate similar to CS patients, with a lower mortality rate, and better functional outcome on long-term follow-up.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".