Stroke and high-risk TIA outcomes with reduction of treatment duration when treatment initiated in emergency rooms (SHORTER-study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Following transient ischemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke, the risk of recurrent stroke can be significantly reduced with short-duration dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). We wish to investigate whether 10 days of DAPT is as effective as 21 days' treatment. STUDY DESIGN: This is an open-label, randomized, parallel-group study comparing whether 10 days of DAPT treatment (ASA + clopidogrel) is non-inferior to 21 days of DAPT in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) or high-risk TIA. In both groups, DAPT is started within 24 hours of symptom onset. This study is being conducted in approximately 15 study sites in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The planned sample size is 1932. OUTCOMES: Non-inferiority of 10 days compared to 21 days of DAPT in the prevention of the composite endpoint of stroke and death at 90 days in AIS/TIA patients. The primary safety outcome is major intra-cranial and systemic hemorrhage. STUDY PERIOD: Enrolment started in the second quarter of 2023, and the completion of the study is expected in the fourth quarter of 2025. DISCUSSION: The trial is expected to show that 10 days of DAPT is non-inferior for the prevention of early recurrence of vascular events in patients with high-risk TIAs and minor strokes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".