Low ankle-brachial index and cognitive function after stroke—the PROSpective with Incident Stroke Berlin (PROSCIS-B)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Low ankle-brachial index (ABI) ≤0. 9 is a marker for generalized atherosclerosis and a risk factor for cognitive decline in the general population. Objective: To evaluate the impact of ABI ≤0.9 on cognitive function up to 3 years after first-ever ischemic stroke. Methods: Data was used from the "PROspective Cohort with Incident Stroke-Berlin" (PROSCIS-B; NCT01363856). ABI was measured at baseline and categorized into normal (1.4-0.9) vs. low (≤0.9). Cognitive function was assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini-Mental-State-Examination (MMSE) at baseline and with the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status-modified (TICS-m) at 1-3 years of follow-up. We performed confounder adjusted generalized linear models (GLM) to calculate relative risks (RR) for cognitive impairment at baseline (MMSE≤26; MoCA≤25) and linear mixed models (LMM) to estimate the impact of low ABI on TICS-m over time. Results: We included 325 patients [mean age: 66 (SD = 13); 38% female, median NIHSS = 2 (IQR = 1-4), ABI≤0.9: 59 (18%)]. Patients with low ABI were at increased risk of cognitive impairment at baseline (adjusted RR for MoCA≤25 = 1.98; 95%-CI:1.24 to 3.16). TICS-m scores were consistently lower over time in patients with low ABI (adjusted ß = -1.96; 95%-CI:-3.55 to -0.37). Independent of ABI, cognitive function did not decline over time (adjusted ß:0.29; 95%-CI:-0.06 to 0.64). Conclusion: In patients with mild to moderate first-ever ischemic stroke, low ABI is associated with reduced cognitive function over a 3-year follow-up. Study Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01363856.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".