Diabetes and Stroke: What Are the Connections?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stroke is a major cause of death and long-term disability worldwide. Diabetes is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular complications, including stroke. People with diabetes have a 1.5-2 times higher risk of stroke compared with people without diabetes, with risk increasing with diabetes duration. These risks may also differ according to sex, with a greater risk observed among women versus men. Several mechanisms associated with diabetes lead to stroke, including large artery atherosclerosis, cerebral small vessel disease, and cardiac embolism. Hyperglycemia confers increased risk for worse outcomes in people presenting with acute ischemic stroke, compared with people with normal glycemia. Moreover, people with diabetes may have poorer post-stroke outcomes and higher risk of stroke recurrence than those without diabetes. Appropriate management of diabetes and other vascular risk factors may improve stroke outcomes and reduce the risk for recurrent stroke. Secondary stroke prevention guidelines recommend screening for diabetes following a stroke. The diabetes medications pioglitazone and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists have demonstrated protection against stroke in randomized controlled trials; this protective effect is believed to be independent of glycemic control. Neurologists are often involved in the management of modifiable risk factors for stroke (including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and atrial fibrillation), but less often in the direct management of diabetes. This review provides an overview of the relationships between diabetes and stroke, including epidemiology, pathophysiology, post-stroke outcomes, and treatments for people with stroke and diabetes. This should aid neurologists in diabetes-related decision-making when treating people with acute or recurrent stroke.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".