Editorial: Incidence of stroke after myocardial infarction ||FREE PAPER||
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reza TabrizchiDivision of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, NL, CanadaEvidence presented from a recent community-based cohort designed study by Witt and colleagues (2005) suggests that the risk of stroke substantially increases following myocardial infarction (MI). While this suggestion is not new, this particular study was longitudinal in design, spanning a period of 2 decades with a median follow-up of 5.6 years (range 0 to 22.2 years). The study was somewhat limited as the cohort under investigation comprised a white population specific to Olmsted County, MN, USA and the measured outcome included only a review of medical records. Notwithstanding these limitations, the study provides some quite interesting epidemiological information regarding the incidence of stroke following MI (Witt et al 2005).
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.013 |
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".