Effects of Hypothetical Interventions on Ischemic Stroke Using Parametric G-Formula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose— Standard analytic approaches (eg, logistic regression) fail to adequately control for time-dependent confounding and, therefore, may yield biased estimates of the total effect of the exposure on the outcome. In the present study, we estimate the effect of body mass index, intentional physical activity, HDL (high-density lipoprotein) cholesterol, LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol, hypertension, and cigarette smoking on the 11-year risk of ischemic stroke by sex using the parametric g-formula to control time-dependent confounders. Methods— Using data from the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), we followed 6809 men and women aged 45 to 84 years. We estimated the risk of stroke under 6 hypothetical interventions: maintaining body mass index <25 kg/m 2 , maintaining normotension (systolic blood pressure <140 and diastolic <90 mm Hg), quitting smoking, maintaining HDL >1.55 mmol/L, maintaining LDL <3.11 mmol/L, and exercising at least 210 minutes per week. The effects of joint hypothetical interventions were also simulated. Results— In men, the 11-year risk of ischemic stroke would be reduced by 85% (95% CI, 66–96) for all 6 hypothetical interventions. In women, this same effect was estimated as 55% (95% CI, 6–82). Conclusions— The hypothetical interventions explored in our study resulted in risk reduction in both men and women.
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 | 0.027 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".