P.075 Incidence of Stroke Associated With Antithrombotic Agent Interruption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Antithrombotic medications are used in the primary and secondary prevention of ischemic stroke. Previous studies have identified that up to 5.2% of ischemic strokes are associated with antithrombotic interruption, leading to significant mortality and healthcare burden. Our study aims to identify the prevalence of ischemic strokes presenting to a regional stroke centre associated with antithrombotic interruption, and to understand common reasons for medication interruption. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed, which included 193 patients with ischemic stroke presenting to Greater Niagara General Hospital from January 2018-December 2019. Baseline demographics were recorded and patient medical records were reviewed for evidence of antithrombotic interruptions. Results: Table 1. Conclusions: Our cohort identified a significant proportion (8.3%) of ischemic strokes with documented antithrombotic interruption. Most common reasons for interruption were non-adherence and discontinuation due to previous adverse event. The results identify possible areas for improvement within patient education and safe re-initiation of antithrombotics following adverse events.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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".