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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".