MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Homocysteine and stroke

2001· review· en· W2776567140 on OpenAlexaff
Graeme J. Hankey, John W. Eikelboom

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Neurology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomocysteineMedicineStroke (engine)Internal medicineMultivitaminVascular diseaseConfoundingCardiologyEpidemiologyEndothelial dysfunctionVitamin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past year epidemiological studies have linked elevated plasma total homocysteine concentrations with an increased risk of ischaemic stroke because of arterial disease. Laboratory studies have further explored the mitogenic effects of total homocysteine on vascular smooth muscle, and cytotoxic and thrombophilic effects on vascular endothelium. Also, a clinical trial has shown that lowering total homocysteine by means of multivitamin therapy decreases the rate of abnormal exercise electrocardiography tests. However, it remains to be determined whether lowering total homocysteine prevents hard clinical outcome events, such as stroke and other serious vascular events. An alternative explanation for the observed association between elevated total homocysteine and stroke is a confounding effect of factors associated with hyperhomocysteinaemia (e.g. cigarette smoking, renal impairment, an atherogenic diet, cystine deficiency, folate deficiency) or perhaps even the acute vascular events themselves, whereby the tissue damage temporarily increases total homocysteine levels. The results of ongoing clinical trials in stroke patients to determine the impact of multivitamin therapy on recurrent stroke and other serious vascular events are awaited.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations139
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in NeurologySame topicFolate and B Vitamins ResearchFrench-language works237,207