Abstract 2977: Sex Differences and Hemoglobin Levels in Relation to Stroke Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Women have worse outcomes after ischemic stroke compared to men. Several mechanisms are postulated, including older age and a differential effect of sex hormones. We have previously shown that hemoglobin levels are associated with increased stroke volume and infarct expansion. Since women have lower hemoglobin values, we examined whether hemoglobin levels may be associated with poorer stroke outcomes in women. Methods: We retrospectively studied 274 patients (N = 121 women, N = 153 men) enrolled in a prospective study. We explored the relationship of hemoglobin with clinical outcome at 6 months, as measured by the modified Rankin Scale. We employed ordinal logistic regression to evaluate the effect of hemoglobin on clinical outcome and to explore the influence of sex on that association. Results: Women had a lower hemoglobin level (11.7 +/- 1.8 g/dL) compared to men (13.3 +/- 1.7 g/dL; P < 0.001). Low hemoglobin was correlated with worse 6-month mRS outcome in univariate analysis (P < 0.001). Lower hemoglobin remained independently associated with poorer outcome after adjustment for age, sex, blood glucose, NIH stroke scale score, hypertension, smoking and diabetes mellitus. The inclusion of hemoglobin in the model eliminated the independent effect of sex on outcome. Conclusions: Sex differences in stroke outcome may be mediated in part by lower hemoglobin levels, a potentially modifiable predictor. Further examination exploring whether hemoglobin has a causative role is warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".