Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent trials of antithrombotic therapy in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) have demonstrated substantial reductions in ischemic stroke. Our aim was to examine ischemic stroke risk in patients with CAD and to identify those at highest risk. We examined ischemic stroke risk in patients without atrial fibrillation who underwent coronary angiography between 2004 and 2012. Patients were stratified according to presence or absence of CAD and further stratified by extent of CAD (0 vessel disease [VD], 1 VD, 2 VD, 3 VD, and diffuse VD). End points were composites of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and systemic embolism, as well as major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, plus ischemic stroke, TIA, and systemic embolism. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated. A total of 68,829 patients were included, 25,032 had 0 VD, 4,736 had diffuse VD, 18,471 had 1 VD, 10,588 had 2 VD, and 10,002 had 3 VD. Median follow-up was 4.0 years. CAD extent was associated with an increased risk of stroke, TIA, and systemic embolism (1 VD: adjusted IRR 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90 to 1.16; diffuse VD: adjusted IRR 1.22, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.47; 2 VD: adjusted IRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.45; 3 VD: adjusted IRR 1.37, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.55) compared with patients with 0 VD. Presence and extent of CAD were also associated with MACCE. In conclusion, CAD is associated with an increased risk of stroke, TIA, and systemic embolism and MACCE in patients without atrial fibrillation, and patients with coronary multi-VD are at highest risk and may be candidates for treatment strategies aiming at reducing ischemic stroke incidence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".