MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2729339439 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx330

Blood pressure and in-hospital outcomes in patients presenting with ischaemic stroke

2017· article· en· W2729339439 on OpenAlexaff
Sripal Bangalore, Lee H. Schwamm, Eric E. Smith, Anne S. Hellkamp, Robert E. Suter, Ying Xian, Phillip J. Schulte, Gregg C. Fonarow, Deepak L. Bhatt

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureStroke (engine)Confidence intervalCardiologyInternal medicineOdds ratioPulse pressureIschaemic strokeDiastoleIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Post-stroke hypertension is associated with poor short-term outcome, although the results have been conflicting. Our objective was to evaluate the association of blood pressure (BP) and in-hospital outcomes in patients with acute ischaemic stroke. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients in the Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry with acute ischaemic stroke were included. Admission systolic and diastolic BP was used to compute mean arterial pressure (MAP) and pulse pressure (PP). The outcomes of interest were: in-hospital mortality, not discharged home, inability to ambulate independently at discharge and haemorrhagic complications due to thrombolytic therapy. A total of 309 611 patients with an ischaemic stroke were included. There was a J-shaped/U-shaped relationship between systolic BP and outcomes. Both lower and higher systolic BP values, compared with a central reference value, had higher risk of in-hospital death [e.g. adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) (OR[CI]) = 1.16[1.13-1.20] for 120 vs. 150 mmHg and 1.24[1.19-1.30] for 200 vs. 150 mmHg], not discharged home (OR[CI] = 1.11[1.09-1.13] for 120 vs. 150 mmHg and 1.15[1.12-1.18] for 200 vs. 150 mmHg), inability to ambulate independently at discharge (OR[CI] = 1.16[1.13-1.18] for 120 vs. 150 mmHg and 1.09[1.06-1.11] for 200 vs. 150 mmHg). However, risk of haemorrhagic complications of thrombolytic therapy was lower with lower systolic BP (OR[CI] = 0.89[0.83-0.97] for 120 vs. 150 mmHg), while higher with higher systolic BP (OR[CI] = 1.21[1.11-1.32] for 200 vs. 150 mmHg). The results were largely similar for admission diastolic BP, MAP, and PP. CONCLUSION: In patients hospitalized with ischaemic stroke, J-shaped, or U-shaped relationships were observed between BP variables and short-term outcomes. However, haemorrhagic complications with thrombolytic therapy were lower with lower BP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations75
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207