Medium Term Study of Incidence, Risk Factors and Type of Stroke in Hypertensive Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: To investigate the incidence and risk factors of stroke in hypertension patients over 60 years of age, and to investigate the correlation. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 454 hypertension patients who were diagnosed through examination were divided into 4 groups, of which included group A (hypertension plus type 2 diabetes) were 4 cases, group B (hypertension plus hyperlipidemia) were 367 cases, group C (hypertension plus type 2 diabetes and hyperlipidemia) were 47 cases, and group D (hypertension) were 36cases. Every patient was given observation after definite diagnosis and treatment of 54 months, and to investigate the incidence of acute cerebral infarction, cerebral hemorrhage. Results: There were 44 patients occurred acute cerebral infarction in all 4 groups. Of these cases, there were 1 case in group A, 31 cases in group B,10 cases in group C and 2 cases in group D. In group B, 3 cases occurred cerebral hemorrhage. Logistic regression analysis showed systolic blood pressure (OR=1.106, P=0.001), fasting glucose (OR=2.059, P=0.000) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (OR=0.104, P=0.025) were risk factors for stroke. Conclusions: Higher levels of blood glucose and/or blood lipid associate with higher risk of stroke in patients with hypertension.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".