Rivaroxaban versus aspirin for prevention of covert brain infarcts in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source: NAVIGATE ESUS MRI substudy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Covert brain infarcts are associated with important neurological morbidity. Their incidence in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) is unknown. AIMS: To assess the incidence of covert brain infarcts and cerebral microbleeds using MRI in a prospective substudy of the NAVIGATE ESUS randomized trial and to evaluate the effects of antithrombotic therapies. METHODS: At 87 sites in 15 countries, substudy participants were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban 15 mg daily or aspirin 100 mg daily and underwent brain MRI near randomization and after study termination. The primary outcome was incident brain infarct (clinical ischemic stroke or covert brain infarct). Brain infarcts and microbleeds were ascertained centrally by readers unaware of treatment. Treatment effects were estimated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among the 718 substudy participants with interpretable, paired MRIs, the mean age was 67 years and 61% were men with a median of 52 days between the qualifying ischemic stroke and randomization and a median of seven days between randomization and baseline MRI. During the median (IQR) 11 (12) month interval between scans, clinical ischemic strokes occurred in 27 (4%) participants, while 60 (9%) of the remaining participants had an incident covert brain infarct detected by MRI. Assignment to rivaroxaban was not associated with reduction in the incidence of brain infarct (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.49, 1.2) or of covert brain infarct among those without clinical stroke (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.50, 1.4). New microbleeds were observed in 7% and did not differ among those assigned rivaroxaban vs. aspirin (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.52-1.7). CONCLUSIONS: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02313909.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".