Appropriate use of antiplatelet medications following transient ischemic attacks and stroke: a 9-year study from the Middle East
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose: Guidelines recommend that patients with high-risk TIAs and minor strokes presenting within 1-3 days from onset should be offered dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). There are little data on real-world adherence to these recommendations. We evaluated the appropriateness of DAPT use in TIA and stroke patients in a prospective database. Methods: The Qatar Stroke Database began the enrollment of patients with TIAs and acute stroke in 2014 and currently has ~16,000 patients. For this study, we evaluated the rates of guideline-adherent use of antiplatelet treatment at the time of discharge in patients with TIAs and stroke. TIAs were considered high-risk with an ABCD2 score of 4, and a minor stroke was defined as an NIHSS of 3. Patient demographics, clinical features, risk factors, previous medications, imaging and laboratory investigations, final diagnosis, discharge medications, and discharge and 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) were analyzed. Results: After excluding patients with ICH, mimics, and rare secondary causes, 8,082 patients were available for final analysis (TIAs: 1,357 and stroke: 6,725). In high-risk TIAs, 282 of 666 (42.3%) patients were discharged on DAPT. In patients with minor strokes, 1,207 of 3,572 (33.8%) patients were discharged on DAPT. DAPT was inappropriately offered to 238 of 691 (34.4%) low-risk TIAs and 809 of 3,153 (25.7%) non-minor stroke patients. Conclusion: This large database of prospectively collected patients with TIAs and stroke shows that, unfortunately, despite several guidelines, a large majority of patients with TIAs and stroke are receiving inappropriate antiplatelet treatment at discharge from the hospital. This requires urgent attention and further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".