MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2731831602 · doi:10.1161/01.str.32.suppl_1.362

Clinical Characteristics of Coronary Heart Disease as Predictors of Ischemic Stroke: A Long-term Prospective Follow-up in the BIP Study.

2000· article· en· W2731831602 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Tanné, Avraham Shotan, Uri Goldbourt, Valentina Boyko, Henrietta Reicher-Reiss, Solomon Behar

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBezafibrateInternal medicineStroke (engine)Myocardial infarctionCardiologyAnginaCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyCoronary heart diseaseUnstable anginaVascular diseaseRisk factorIschemic strokePhysical therapyIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

P126 Objective: To assess characteristics and severity of coronary heart disease (CHD) predisposing to ischemic stroke, beyond conventional vascular risk factors. Methods: We prospectively followed up 3,122 patients with documented CHD included in a secondary prevention trial of lipid modification, the Bezafibrate Infarction Prevention trial. Patients had CHD documented by a history of myocardial infarction ≥6 months and Results: During a mean follow-up period of 8.2 years, 186 patients developed an ischemic stroke. The rate of ischemic stroke was 8.8% among patients with an active anginal syndrome[class ≥2 according to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina Classification, (CCSC)]vs. 5.1% in patients with a CCSC class of 1 (p Conclusion: Active angina (CCSC class ≥2)and hospitalization for unstable angina during follow-up among CHD patients,confer an independent increased risk of ischemic stroke, beyond conventional vascular risk factors.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health→French-language works237,207→