Soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 in patients with recent cerebral ischemic events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
P46 Objective: To determine whether serum levels of soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM) differ between individuals with recent acute ischemic stroke (AIS) or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and control subjects. Methods: sICAM levels were measured in patients with recent (≤ 7 days) AIS or TIA and in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis and control subjects. Demographic information was collected and all subjects underwent complete neurological evaluations, routine blood tests and baseline cervical ultrasonography. Subjects with either a qualifying AIS or TIA also underwent cranial CT. sICAM levels were compared between different patient groups and correlated with carotid stenosis in those with AIS or TIA using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and logistic regression. Results: sICAM levels were measured in 288 patients (48.6% males). Of these, 91 had either a recent AIS or TIA. There were 75 control subjects. The remainder (n=122) had an asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Mean follow-up for all patients was 25.1 months. Mean age and distribution of cardiovascular risk factors were similar across all groups of patients. Mean sICAM levels were higher in those with recent AIS or TIA than in control subjects but without quite reaching statistical significance (p=0.10). For those with either AIS or TIA, mean sICAM levels did not differ on repeat measurement nor did initial levels correlate with the degree of carotid stenosis homolateral to the side of the ischemic event. During follow-up, 30 patients overall, (10.4%), experienced a recurrent ischemic event (either TIA, AIS, myocardial infarction and/or vascular death). Patients with either AIS or TIA, experienced a higher recurrence rate (24.6%). Mean sICAM levels were higher in those patients with a recurrent ischemic event (375.9 ng/mL) than in those without (332.1 ng/mL). Conclusion: There was a trend for higher sICAM levels in patients with recent AIS or TIA compared with control subjects. In addition, higher initial sICAM levels were associated with an increased risk of recurrent ischemic events for all 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".