Association Between Previous Use of Antiplatelet Therapy and Intracerebral Hemorrhage Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although the use of antiplatelet therapy (APT) is associated with the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), there are limited data on prestroke APT and outcomes, particularly among patients on combination APT (CAPT). We hypothesized that the previous use of antiplatelet agents is associated with increased mortality in ICH. METHODS: We analyzed data of 82 576 patients with ICH who were not on oral anticoagulant therapy from 1574 Get with the Guidelines-Stroke hospitals between October 2012 and March 2016. Patients were categorized as not on APT, on single-APT (SAPT), and CAPT before hospital presentation with ICH. We described baseline characteristics, comorbidities, hospital characteristics and outcomes, overall and stratified by APT use. RESULTS: Before the diagnosis of ICH, 65.8% patients were not on APT, 29.5% patients were on SAPT, and 4.8% patients were on CAPT. There was an overall modest increased in-hospital mortality in the APT group versus no APT group (24% versus 23%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.10). Although patients on SAPT and CAPT were older and had higher risk profiles in terms of comorbidities, there was no significant difference in the in-hospital mortality among patients on SAPT versus those not on any APT (23% versus 23%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.05). However, in-hospital mortality was higher among those on CAPT versus those not on APT (30% versus 23%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-1.63). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that among patients with ICH, previous use of CAPT, but not SAPT, was associated with higher risk for in-hospital mortality.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".