Giant Cell Arteritis–related Stroke: A Retrospective Multicenter Case-control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to describe patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA)-related stroke and to compare them with a control group of GCA patients without stroke. METHODS: We created a retrospective multicenter cohort of patients with (1) GCA diagnosed according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria between 1995 and 2015, and (2) stroke occurring at the time of GCA diagnosis or occurring within 4 weeks of starting GCA therapy. The control group consisted of GCA patients without stroke. RESULTS: Forty patients [21 women (53%), median age 78 (60-91) yrs] with GCA-related stroke were included and were compared with 200 control patients. Stroke occurred at GCA diagnosis in 29 patients (73%), whereas it occurred after diagnosis in 11 patients. Vertebrobasilar territory was involved in 29 patients (73%). Seven patients died within a few hours or days following stroke. Compared with the control group, stroke patients had more ophthalmic ischemic symptoms [25 (63%) vs 50 (25%), p < 0.001]. Conversely, they demonstrated lower biological inflammatory variables [C-reactive protein: 61 (28-185) mg/l vs 99 (6-400) mg/l, p = 0.04] and less anemia [22/37 (59%) vs 137/167 (79%), p = 0.03] than patients without stroke. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that the best predictors for the occurrence of stroke were the presence of ophthalmic ischemic symptoms at diagnosis (OR 5, 95% CI 2.14-12.33, p = 0.0002) and the absence of anemia (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.99, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Stroke, especially in the vertebrobasilar territory, is more likely to occur in patients with GCA who experience recent ophthalmic ischemic symptoms and who exhibit low inflammatory variables.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".