MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2728060463 · doi:10.1161/str.46.suppl_1.wp156

Abstract W P156: Arterial Stiffness in Older Adults With and Without Stroke

2015· article· en· W2728060463 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ada Tang, Daria A. Shkredova, Derek W. Stouth, Maureen J. MacDonald, Jennifer J. Heisz

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArterial stiffnessMedicinePulse wave velocityMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCardiologyStroke (engine)Internal medicineCognitionPhysical therapyCognitive impairmentBlood pressureDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Silent cerebrovascular infarcts resulting from vascular disease can manifest as a decline in cognitive function. These silent events are also associated with increased risk of clinically overt stroke. Arterial stiffness is a marker that represents atherosclerotic progression and is a predictor of cardiovascular events and mortality. This study examined the relationship between arterial stiffness and cognitive impairment between adults aged 50-80 years old with and without stroke. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that elevated arterial stiffness would be observed in individuals with stroke, and also be associated with increased cognitive impairment across all participants. Methods: Cognition was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Arterial stiffness was quantified using carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV, in m/s), calculated as cfPWV=D/Δt, where D was the distance measured between arterial sites and Δt was the pulse transit time. Higher values represent increased stiffness, and values >10 m/s are associated with increased risk for cardiovascular events. Results: Twenty-five participants were assessed: 11 participants 4.7±2.4 years post-stroke and 14 older adults without stroke. The non-stroke group was older (73.1±3.9 vs. 65.2±9.4 years, P=0.009), while the stroke group had lower MoCA scores (21.2±3.2 vs. 24.4±2.8, P=0.01). There were no between-group differences in cfPWV (stroke 9.4 m/s vs. older adults 9.9 m/s, P=0.49), when controlling for age and MoCA scores. In backward regression analysis, age explained 21% of the variance of cfPWV (P=0.03), while MoCA was not a contributor. Conclusions: In conclusion, these results suggest that age is a significant correlate of arterial stiffness, regardless of the presence of stroke or cognitive impairment. Ongoing work will examine whether stroke history also contributes to arterial stiffness when groups are matched for age.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention→French-language works237,207→