Branch atheromatous disease diagnosed as embolic stroke of undetermined source: A sub-analysis of NAVIGATE ESUS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Branch atheromatous disease (BAD) is distinctive from large and small arterial diseases, which is single subcortical infarction larger than lacunar stroke in the territories of deep perforators without relevant arterial stenosis. BAD meets the current criteria of embolic stroke of undetermined source. We performed an exploratory analysis of BAD in patients recruited to NAVIGATE embolic stroke of undetermined source, a randomized controlled trial to compare rivaroxaban and aspirin in embolic stroke of undetermined source patients. Methods and results Among 3972 stroke patients in cerebral hemispheres with intracranial arterial imaging, 502 (12.6%) patients met the criteria for BAD. BAD was associated with younger age (years; OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.96–0.98), race (Asian; OR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.44–2.21), region (Eastern Europe; OR: 2.49, 95% CI: 1.87–3.32), and higher National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.12–1.22) at randomization. During follow-up, stroke or systemic embolism (2.5%/year vs. 6.2%/year, p = 0.0022), stroke (2.1%/year vs. 6.2%/year, p = 0.0008), and ischemic stroke (2.1%/year vs. 5.9%/year, p = 0.0013) occurred less frequently in BAD than non-BAD patients. There were no differences in annual rates of stroke or systemic embolism (2.5%/year vs. 2.5%/year, HR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.33–3.14) or major bleeding (1.3%/year vs. 0.8%/year, HR: 1.51, 95% CI: 0.25–9.05) between rivaroxaban and aspirin groups among BAD patients. Conclusions BAD was relatively common, especially in Asian and from Eastern Europe among embolic stroke of undetermined source patients. Stroke severity was higher at randomization but recurrence of stroke was fewer in BAD than non-BAD patients. The efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban and aspirin did not differ among BAD 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".