MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cryptogenic Stroke: Are We Missing Cancer?

2024· article· en· W4392605885 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Debabrata Chakraborty

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology India · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)CancerAtrial fibrillationMalignancyIncidence (geometry)EtiologyBreast cancerInternal medicinePediatricsCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir, Cancer is an important stroke etiology, and occult cancer may be often missed as stroke mechanisms in such cases are stamped as cryptogenic. In a group of patients with Embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS), 20% of patients had active cancer, and these patients had D-dimer levels twenty times higher compared to those without cancer.[1] The infarcts in these cases were in multiple vascular territories.[1] In fact, the “Three Territory Sign” is very specific for malignancy-related stroke and six times commoner than atrial fibrillation-related stroke.[2] One out of ten patients hospitalized with ischemic stroke in the United States had comorbid cancer.[3] If we detect cancer within a year after stroke, we may assume it to be present during the vascular event and might have a contribution towards it.[4] In a Canadian study involving 30,097 patients (age group 45–85 years), the diagnosis of cancer within the first year of a stroke was 2.4 times compared to individuals without stroke.[5] Patients aged between 15 and 49 years have up to fivefold increased chance of having cancer within first year of stroke diagnosis and incidence falls gradually with time (in a study from the Netherlands involving 390,398 patients).[6] In fact, arterial thromboembolism is commonly detected five months before cancer is diagnosed; with maximum incidence, a month before the detection of cancer.[7] Cancer patients have high chance of embolic stroke (detected by Transcranial Doppler) related to hypercoagulopathy, especially among those who do not have conventional stroke mechanism (CSM) and stamped as cryptogenic strokes compared to patients with CSM (57.9% vs 33.3%).[8] Interestingly, hypercoagulability is a double-eyed sword as it can also precipitate tumor growth and needs to be detected and treated at the earliest opportunity. Besides cancer-induced coagulopathy, cancer may speed up the CSMs. Mucin secreted into the bloodstream from adenocarcinoma provokes a coagulation cascade. Local infiltration of blood vessels occurs by tumor emboli or nonbacterial thrombotic endocarditis. Hyperleukocytosis in leukemia and hyperviscosity because of increased protein formation in multiple myeloma are other mechanisms. One out of four cancer patients are detected to have patent foramen ovale (PFO), while one out of five cancer patients have venous thromboembolism; thus, PFO and cancer are another important association.[6] Extracellular vesicles derived from cancer cells and NETosis markers were found prominently high in stroke patients with cancer.[1] Stroke among the young is on rise in every corner of the world and almost 50% of them are still cryptogenic. So, we need to search for markers of cancer-related stroke. Very high levels of D-Dimer, C-reactive protein (CRP), fibrinogen, cancer cell-derived extracellular vesicles, NETosis markers, micro-emboli (detection via Transcranial doppler [TCD]), and finally the presence of PFO in patients of cryptogenic stroke are probably such markers. Thus, when a patient comes with stroke (especially young), cancer needs to be ruled out even in the presence of conventional risk factors when the stroke mechanism remains undetermined. It will cause early detection of cancer and save precious time as we can intervene early. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology IndiaSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207