MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120814876 · doi:10.25692/acen.2020.3.1

The World Stroke Organization’s Declaration for worldwide primary stroke and dementia prevention

2020· article· en· W3120814876 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Brainin, Valery L. Feigin, Bo Norrving, Sheila Cristina Ouriques Martins, Graeme J. Hankey, Vladimir Hachinski

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Clinical and Experimental Neurology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersPfizerAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsDeclarationStroke (engine)DementiaPrimary preventionMedicineVascular dementiaPolitical scienceInternal medicineEngineeringDiseaseLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Сurrent strategies of primary stroke and cardiovascular disease prevention are aimed at addressing the main risk factors primarily in patients with higher cardiovascular disease risk. Since the number of people with incident stroke and ischaemic heart disease cases is rapidly growing across all countries of the world, this preventive strategy appears to be not sufficiently effective. World Stroke Organization recently (2020) endorsed a different concept of stroke and dementia prevention based on a population-wide approach to dealing with risk factors, which involves all individuals regardless of their cardiovascular disease risk level. This article describes four main primary prevention strategies suggested by the World Stroke Organization to effectively reduce stroke and dementia incidence by 50% and 30% respectively. These strategies include (1) population-wide prevention; (2) polypill therapy; (3) free e-Health application “Stroke Riskometer”; and active engagement of community health workers.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0180.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.014

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Clinical and Experimental NeurologySame topicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionFrench-language works237,207