MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409210074 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.124.049826

Does the Burden of CSVD Modify the Efficacy of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy?: A Post Hoc Analysis of the INSPIRES Trial

2025· article· en· W4409210074 on OpenAlexaff
Hang Li, Min Cheng, Ying Gao, Hongyi Yan, Y. Wang, S. Claiborne Johnston, Philip M. Bath, Pierre Amarenco, Yingying Yang, Weiqi Chen, Yongjun Wang, Yuesong Pan, Yilong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAspirinStroke (engine)Internal medicineHazard ratioClopidogrelPlaceboPost-hoc analysisSubgroup analysisRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) imaging markers is high, yet their influence on stroke prognosis remains unclear. This study aimed to estimate the effects of CSVD on the efficacy and safety of clopidogrel+aspirin versus aspirin among patients with minor stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. METHODS: This was a post hoc subgroup analysis of the INSPIRES trial (Intensive Statin and Antiplatelet Therapy for Acute High-Risk Intracranial or Extracranial Atherosclerosis), which was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2×2 factorial, and randomized clinical trial conducted at 222 centers in China from September 2018 to October 2022. Patients were classified into CSVD score 0 to 2 and CSVD score ≥3 groups based on a modified CSVD burden score without microbleeds. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were stroke recurrence and moderate-to-severe bleeding risk within 90-day follow-up. We used Cox proportional hazards models to test the treatment-by-CSVD group interaction for stroke and bleeding risk. RESULTS: A total of 5126 patients (median age, 65 [57–71] years; 3915 [64.2%] males) were enrolled and 2131 (41.57%) had a modified CSVD score ≥3. Patients with CSVD score ≥3 had numerically higher stroke recurrence rate (9.10% versus 8.05%) and lower risk of moderate-to-severe bleeding (0.56% versus 0.80%) than those with CSVD score 0 to 2 within 90 days. Clopidogrel+aspirin versus aspirin reduced stroke recurrence to a similar relative degree in both CSVD score 0 to 2 (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.61–1.01]; P =0.06) and CSVD score ≥3 groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.62–1.09]; P =0.12) with no evidence of statistical interaction ( P =0.84). Clopidogrel+aspirin versus aspirin increased bleeding risk to a similar relative degree in both CSVD score 0 to 2 (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.83 [95% CI, 1.52–5.27]; P =0.03) and CSVD score ≥3 groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.08–4.19]; P =0.22) with no statistical interaction ( P =0.68). CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc subgroup analysis, no significant interaction effect was observed between the antiplatelet treatment and the modified CSVD score, suggesting that clopidogrel+aspirin may not provide a significantly different benefit-risk profile across patients with CSVD score 0 to 2 versus CSVD score ≥3. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03635749.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.011
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207