MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912030967 · doi:10.1161/str.50.suppl_1.wp518

Abstract WP518: Use of American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Secondary Stroke Prevention Recommendations in Hispanic/Latino Adults With Stroke/TIA: The Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos

2019· article· en· W2912030967 on OpenAlexaff
Fang Bai, Vinny Sharma, Jinsong Chen, Dilip K. Pandey, Ramón Durazo-Arvizú, Gregory A. Talavera, Matthew Allison, Krista M. Perreira, Neil Schneiderman, Melanie W. Sutherland, Jianwen Cai, Martha L. Daviglus, Fernando D. Testai

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Diabetes mellitusAntithromboticPopulationLogistic regressionPhysical therapyDemographyInternal medicineGerontologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Population studies showed that Hispanic/Latino adults have elevated rates of uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) with noticeable sex-specific variations . We investigated prevalence of CVRFs and the use of American Heart Association (AHA) secondary stroke prevention strategies in Hispanics/Latinos in the United States. Methods: Data from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) were used to examine sociodemographic characteristics, use of antithrombotic agents and statins, and treatment of CVRFs in persons with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). CVRFs were categorized as “controlled” if the CVRF met the goals defined by the AHA irrespective of whether the subject was on treatment for it or not; and “unaware” if the participant denied having a CVRF but met the diagnostic criteria for it. Differences between men and women were tested using ANOVA test and Pearson’s χ 2 . Factors associated with adherence to AHA recommendations were investigated using logistic regression. Results: These analyses included 404 individuals with history of stroke/TIA (men=159; women=245). Women were slightly older than men (55.1±1.5 vs. 54.1±1.6 years; p<0.0001). The prevalence of hypertension (HTN), hypercholesterolemia (HC), and diabetes (DM) were 59%, 65% and 39%. The rates of awareness/controlled CVRFs were 90%/49%, 75%/32%, and 83%/54% for HTN, HC, and DM, respectively. Approximately 49% of the individuals were on antithrombotic agents, 39% on statins, and 26% on dual treatment with antithrombotics and statins. Rates were comparable between men and women except for HC control which was lower in women (41±6% vs. 23±5%; p=0.02). In logistic regression analysis, older age was associated with poorer adherence to AHA recommendations. Female sex and residence >10 years in the US were associated with uncontrolled HC and DM, respectively. Conclusion: Hispanics/Latinos with stroke have elevated rates of awareness but suboptimal use of AHA secondary stroke prevention strategies. Older persons and women are vulnerable groups that may benefit from targeted interventions.

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)0.002
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207