Prognostic Relevance of C-Reactive Protein in Short Term Adverse Outcome in Patients with Acute Ischaemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Elevated C-Reactive Protein (CRP) is a predictive marker for future cardiovascular events in ischaemic stroke patients but the timing of CRP evaluation in relation to the onset of the qualifying event has not been determined. Aim: To study the predictive accuracy of CRP in relation to adverse outcome of patients with acute ischaemic stroke. Materials and Methods: This prospective single centre, observational study was conducted on 62 cases of acute ischaemic stroke admitted to the Department of Medicine, SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha, India. CRP was determined quantitatively in all the patients of ischaemic stroke both at the time of admission and discharge. The CRP value was correlated with infarct size (Computed Tomography (CT) scan), mortality, morbidity (disability i.e., Barthel Index (BI), Canadian Neurologic Stroke Scale (CNSS) and vascular events). The end points were death or any new non fatal vascular events (recurrent stroke, unstable angina, myocardial infarction) recorded during six months of follow-up period. Results: CRP at admission correlates with the occurrence of fatal events only but CRP at discharge correlates with occurrence of both fatal and non fatal events. On follow-up occurrence of events correlates more strongly with CRP at admission. Out of total 14 non fatal events, maximum was restroke i.e., 7 (50%) which occurs in high CRP group. BI (degree of disability), both on admission and at six months strongly correlated with CRP at discharge (p-value=0.008 and 0.001 respectively). Conclusion: The severity of stroke and degree of disability was highest in high CRP group. The CRP at discharge was a better predictor of future outcome in terms of fatal and non fatal events than CRP at admission.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".