MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3175275697 · doi:10.1161/str.48.suppl_1.wp198

Abstract WP198: Sex Differences in Outcomes After Stroke in Patients With Diabetes in Ontario, Canada

2017· article· en· W3175275697 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mandip S. Dhamoon, John Liang, Limei Zhou, Melissa Stamplecoski, Moira K. Kapral, Baiju R. Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusStroke (engine)Hazard ratioMyocardial infarctionPopulationIncidence (geometry)Proportional hazards modelInternal medicineRisk factorConfidence intervalEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Diabetes is a cardiovascular disease risk factor that exerts a higher risk for coronary heart disease and stroke among females compared to males. Outcomes after first stroke in those with diabetes are not well characterized, especially by sex and age, and studies have been limited by short follow-up and biased samples. We sought to calculate the sex- and age-specific risk of cardiovascular outcomes after ischemic stroke among those with diabetes using a study with full population coverage. Methods: Using population-based demographic and administrative health care databases in Ontario, Canada, we selected all patients with diabetes hospitalized with first ischemic stroke between 4/1/2002 and 3/31/2012. Participants were followed for death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Fine-Gray competing risk models were used to estimate hazards and adjusted hazards of outcomes by sex and age strata. Models were adjusted for demographics and vascular risk factors. Sensitivity analysis including adjustment for medication use was performed in those aged >=65 years. Results: There were 25495 ischemic stroke patients with diabetes. The incidence of death was higher in women than in men (14.08 per 100 person-years [95% CI 13.73-14.44] vs. 11.89 [11.60-12.19]), but was lower after adjustment for age and other risk factors (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.95 [0.92-0.99]). The incidence of recurrent stroke was similar in women and men, but men were more likely to be readmitted for MI (1.99 per 100 person-years [1.89-2.10] vs 1.58 [1.49-1.68] among females). In multivariable models, females had a lower risk of readmission for any event (HR 0.96 [95% CI 0.93-0.99]). Conclusions: In this retrospective study with full population coverage among diabetics with index stroke in Ontario, there was a higher unadjusted rate of death among females compared to males, and higher unadjusted incidence of MI among males. In adjusted models, females had a lower risk of death compared to males, although the increased risk of MI among males persisted. These findings confirm and quantify sex differences in outcomes after stroke in patients with diabetes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→