MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Atherothrombotic and thrombolytic biomarkers in incident stroke and atrial fibrillation-related stroke: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)

2024· article· en· W4390705598 on OpenAlexaff
Kárita Cláudia Freitas Lidani, Patrick J. Trainor, Harpreet Bhatia, Khurram Nasir, Michael J. Blaha, Michael Y. Tsai, Rebecca F. Gottesman, Wendy S. Post, George Thanassoulis, Sotirios Tsimikas, Susan R. Heckbert, Andrew P. DeFilippis

Bibliographic record

VenueAtherosclerosis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthWake Forest University
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineStroke (engine)CardiologyThrombolysisRisk factorThrombusHazard ratioProportional hazards modelBiomarkerMyocardial infarctionConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and aims Although several biomarkers have been studied in thromboembolic stroke, measuring the balance between thrombus formation and thrombolysis and its role in predicting stroke and atrial fibrillation (AF)-related stroke is limited. We sought to assess atherothrombotic biomarkers grouped into composite factors that reflect thrombotic and thrombolytic potential, and the balance between these factors as it relates to incident stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and stroke/TIA in AF. Methods A Thrombotic Factor , derived from fibrinogen, plasmin–antiplasmin complex, factor VIII, D-dimer, and lipoprotein(a); and a Thrombolytic Factor , derived from plasminogen and oxidized phospholipids on plasminogen, were evaluated at baseline in 5,764 Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) participants. We evaluated the association between these two factors representative of thrombotic and thrombolytic potential and incident stroke/TIA (n = 402), and AF-related stroke/TIA (n = 82) over a median of 13.9 and 3.7 years, respectively. Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for medication use, cardiovascular risk factors and CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score were utilized. Harrell's C-index was estimated to evaluate model performance. Results In models including both factors, Thrombotic Factor was positively while Thrombolytic Factor was inversely associated with incident stroke/TIA and AF-related stroke/TIA. Incorporating these factors along with the CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc in adjusted models resulted in a small improvement in risk prediction of incident stroke/TIA and AF-related stroke/TIA compared to models without the factors (C-index from 0.697 to 0.704, and from 0.657 to 0.675, respectively). Conclusions Composite biomarker factors, representative of the balance between thrombotic and thrombolytic propensity, provided an improvement in predicting stroke/TIA beyond CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAtherosclerosisSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207