Stroke Prevention: Little-Known and Neglected Aspects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combining available therapies has the potential to reduce the risk of stroke by 80% or more. A comprehensive review of all aspects of stroke prevention would be very lengthy; in this narrative review, we focus on some aspects of stroke prevention that are little-known and/or neglected. These include the following: (1) implementation of a Mediterranean diet; (2) B vitamins to lower homocysteine; (3) coordinated approaches to smoking cessation; (4) intensive lipid-lowering therapy; (5) lipid lowering in the elderly; (6) physiologically individualized therapy for hypertension based on renin/aldosterone phenotyping; (7) avoiding excessive blood pressure reduction in patients with stiff arteries; (8) treatment of insulin resistance with pioglitazone in stroke patients with prediabetes and diabetes; (9) impaired activation of clopidogrel in patients with variants of CYP2C19; (10) aspirin pseudoresistance due to enteric coating; (11) rationale for anticoagulation in patients with embolic stroke of unknown source; (12) pharmacologic properties of direct-acting oral anticoagulants that should be considered when choosing among them; (13) the identification of which patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis are at a high enough risk to benefit from carotid endarterectomy or stenting; and (14) the importance of age in choosing between endarterectomy and stenting. Stroke prevention could be improved by better recognition of these issues and by implementation of the principles derived from them.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".