Antiplatelet Agent Use After Stroke due to Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This focused update about antiplatelet agents to reduce the high risk of major adverse cardiovascular events after stroke due to spontaneous (nontraumatic) intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) complements earlier updates about blood pressure-lowering, lipid-lowering, and oral anticoagulation or left atrial appendage occlusion for atrial fibrillation after ICH. When used for secondary prevention in people without ICH, antiplatelet agents reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular event (rate ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.75–0.87]) and might increase the risk of ICH (rate ratio, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.97–2.90]). Before 2019, guidance for clinical decisions about antiplatelet agent use after ICH has focused on estimating patients’ predicted absolute risks and severities of ischemic and hemorrhagic major adverse cardiovascular event and applying the known effects of these drugs in people without ICH to estimate whether individual ICH survivors in clinical practice might be helped or harmed by antiplatelet agents. In 2019, the main results of the RESTART (Restart or Stop Antithrombotics Randomized Trial) randomized controlled trial including 537 survivors of ICH associated with antithrombotic drug use showed, counterintuitively, that antiplatelet agents might not increase the risk of recurrent ICH compared to antiplatelet agent avoidance over 2 years of follow-up (12/268 [4%] versus 23/268 [9%]; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.25–1.03]; P =0.060). Guidelines in the United States, Canada, China, and the United Kingdom and Ireland have classified the level of evidence as B and indicated that antiplatelet agents may be considered/reasonable after ICH associated with antithrombotic agent use. Three subsequent clinical trials have recruited another 174 participants with ICH, but they will not be sufficient to determine the effects of antiplatelet therapy on all major adverse cardiovascular events reliably when pooled with RESTART. Therefore, ASPIRING (Antiplatelet Secondary Prevention International Randomized Study After Intracerebral Hemorrhage) aims to recruit 4148 ICH survivors to determine the effects of antiplatelet agents after ICH definitively overall and in subgroups.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".