Intravenous Thrombolysis After First-Ever Ischemic Stroke and Reduced Incident Dementia Rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of intravenous thrombolysis is associated with improved clinical outcomes. Whether thrombolysis is associated with reduced incidence of poststroke dementia remains uncertain. We sought to estimate if the use of thrombolysis following first-ever ischemic stroke was associated with a reduced rate of incident dementia using a pragmatic observational design. METHODS: We included first-ever ischemic stroke patients from the Ontario Stroke Registry who had not previously been diagnosed with dementia. The primary outcome was incident dementia ascertained by a validated diagnostic algorithm. We employed inverse probability of treatment-weighted Cox proportional hazard models to estimate the cause-specific hazard ratio for the association of thrombolysis and incident dementia at 1 and 5 years following stroke. RESULTS: From July 2003 to March 2013, 7072 patients with ischemic stroke were included, 3276 (46.3%) were female and mean age was 71.0 (SD, 12.8) years. Overall, 38.2% of the cohort (n=2705) received thrombolysis, 77.2% (n=2087) of which was administered within 3 hours of stroke onset. In the first year following stroke, thrombolysis administration was associated with a 24% relative reduction in the rate of developing dementia (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.58-0.97]). This association remained significant at 5 years (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.66-0.91]) and at the end of follow-up (median 6.3 years; cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.68-0.89]). CONCLUSIONS: Thrombolysis administration following first-ever ischemic stroke was independently associated with a reduced rate of dementia. Incident dementia should be considered as a relevant outcome when evaluating risk/benefit of thrombolysis in ischemic stroke patients.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".