Predictive value of ankle–brachial index for long-term events of ischemic stroke in hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The ankle–brachial index is a noninvasive modality to evaluate atherosclerosis and is a predictive role for future cardiovascular events and mortality. However, few studies have evaluated its relation to long-term future ischemic stroke in hemodialysis patients. Therefore, we examined the relationship between ankle–brachial index and ischemic stroke events among hemodialysis patients in a seven-year follow-up. Methods A total of 84 patients were enrolled. Ankle–brachial index was assessed in January 2009. Primary outcomes included ischemic stroke. An ankle–brachial index < 0.9 was considered abnormal and 1.4 ≥ ankle–brachial index ≥ 0.9 to be normal ankle–brachial index. Results Mean values for ankle–brachial index were 0.98 ± 0.21at study entrance. In addition, 28 patients encountered ischemic stroke in the seven-year follow-up. In univariate Cox regression analysis, old age (hazard ratio (HR): 1.065, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.030–1.102, p < 0.001), low seven-year averaged serum phosphate levels (HR: 0.473, 95% CI: 0.306–0.730, p = 0.001), and abnormal ankle–brachial index (HR: 0.035, 95% CI: 0.009–0.145, p < 0.001) were risk factors for ischemic stroke. In multivariate Cox regression analysis for significant variables in univariate analysis, abnormal ankle–brachial index (HR: 0.058, 95% CI: 0.012–0.279, p < 0.001) and low seven-year averaged serum phosphate levels (HR: 0.625, 95% CI: 0.404–0.968, p = 0.035) remained the risk factors for ischemic stroke. The risk of ischemic stroke was 3.783-fold in patients with abnormal ankle–brachial index compared with patients with normal ankle–brachial index (HR: 3.783, 95% CI: 1.731–8.269, p = 0.001). Conclusions These findings suggest that ankle–brachial index is an impressive predictor of future ischemic stroke among hemodialysis 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".