MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897874776 · doi:10.1161/str.49.suppl_1.131

Abstract 131: Impact of Concomitant Use of Antiplatelet and Anticoagulation Therapies on Outcomes in Patients With Intracerebral Hemorrhage

2018· article· en· W2897874776 on OpenAlexaff
Taku Inohara, Ying Xian, Liang Li, Roland Matsouaka, Jeffrey L. Saver, Eric E. Smith, Lee H. Schwamm, Mathew J. Reeves, Adrian F. Hernandez, Deepak L. Bhatt, Eric D. Peterson, Gregg C. Fonarow

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConcomitantWarfarinIntracerebral hemorrhageStroke (engine)Internal medicineOdds ratioLogistic regressionAtrial fibrillationSubarachnoid hemorrhage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The impact of the preceding use of concomitant use of antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapies on outcomes of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) has not been thoroughly investigated. Methods: We analyzed 138,834 patients presenting with ICH between October 2013 and December 2016 from 1661 hospitals participating in the Get With The Guidelines-Stroke program. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of concomitant antiplatelet therapy on in-hospital mortality in anticoagulation-related ICH. Results: Of 138,834 patients (mean [SD] age 68.4 [15.3] years; 48.0% women), 118,219 (85.2%) patients were not receiving any oral anticoagulant (OAC), 15,777 (11.4%) were receiving warfarin and 4,838 (3.5%) were receiving non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) prior to ICH. Stroke severity as measured by NIHSS was similar across three groups. Patients receiving warfarin or NOACs were more likely to have single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) than those receiving no OAC (33.0% for warfarin, 30.7% for NOACs, and 27.3% for no OAC), whereas patients receiving no OAC were more likely to have dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) (2.5% for warfarin, 2.3% for NOACs, and 4.4% for no OAC). After adjustment for confounders, SAPT was associated with a slightly higher rate of mortality (33.8% vs. 32.1%, adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.20, 95% CI [1.11-1.30]) than no antiplatelet in patients receiving warfarin, whereas there were no statistically significant differences between SAPT vs. no antiplatelet in patients with no OAC (22.4% vs. 22.9%, AOR = 0.99 [0.95-1.03]) or NOACs (26.8% vs. 26.9%, AOR = 1.09 [0.94-1.26]). DAPT was associated with increased risk of death in patients taking warfarin (46.5% vs. 32.1%, AOR = 2.08 [95% CI, 1.68-2.57]) and no OAC (30.4% vs. 22.9%, AOR = 1.51 [95% CI, 1.40-1.63]). By contrast, in patients taking NOACs, the association of DAPT was not significant but the confidence intervals were wider (32.7% vs. 26.9%, AOR = 1.37 [95% CI, 0.90-2.08]) likely due to small sample size. Conclusions: In patients experienced an ICH, prior concomitant use of antiplatelet therapy (either SAPT or DAPT) significantly increased odds of mortality in patients taking warfarin, but such a difference was not apparent in NOAC-treated ICH patients.

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)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207