MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411962253 · doi:10.1016/j.lanhl.2025.100709

Influence of age on the association of vascular risk factors with acute stroke (INTERSTROKE): a case–control study

2025· article· en· W4411962253 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Catriona Reddin, Graeme J. Hankey, John Ferguson, Peter Langhorne, Shahram Oveisgharan, Michelle Canavan, Helle K. Iversen, Annika Rosengren, Danuta Ryglewicz, Anna Członkowska, Xingyu Wang, Fernando Laņas, Albertino Damasceno, Denis Xavier, Patricio López‐Jaramillo, Andrew Smyth, Salim Yusuf, Martin O’Donnell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Healthy Longevity · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersMedical Research CouncilHeinz Nixdorf StiftungCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAFA FörsäkringIndian Council of Medical ResearchBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyAstraZenecaHealth Research BoardHealth Service ExecutiveWellcome TrustVetenskapsrådetCanadian Stroke NetworkPfizerVästra GötalandsregionenHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaSanofi
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)MedicineStroke (engine)Internal medicineCardiologyPsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The absolute burden of stroke is increasing due to an ageing population, as well as an increased incidence of stroke in young adults. We aimed to determine whether age modifies the magnitude of association between vascular risk factors and stroke in the INTERSTROKE study. Methods INTERSTROKE is an international case–control study of risk factors for first acute stroke. Cases and controls (matched by age and sex) were recruited in 32 countries (between Jan 11, 2007, and Aug 8, 2015). Participants completed a clinical assessment and provided blood and urine samples within 72 h of recruitment. Odds ratios (ORs) for vascular risk factors and their population attributable fractions (PAFs) were calculated among age groups. We tested for an interaction of age by each risk factor. Findings Among 26 950 participants, the mean age of cases was 62·2 years (SD 13·6) and of controls 61·3 years (13·3). Increasing age was associated with a significant increased prevalence for seven vascular risk factors (hypertension, physical inactivity, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, high waist-to-hip ratio, high apolipoprotein B concentration [p<0·0001 for all], and obesity [p=0·016]), reduced prevalence for four vascular risk factors (smoking, alcohol use, psychosocial stress [p<0·0001 for all], and unhealthy diet [p=0·0081]) and unchanged prevalence for one vascular risk factor (depression). Increasing age was associated with a reduced magnitude of OR of stroke for hypertension (p interaction <0·0001), high apolipoprotein B concentration (p interaction <0·001), high waist-to-hip ratio (p interaction 0·011), alcohol use (p interaction <0·0001), and psychosocial stress (p interaction =0·033). No vascular risk factor was associated with a higher odds of stroke with increased age. Hypertension, high waist-to-hip ratio, and physical inactivity accounted for the largest PAF among all age groups. Interpretation Vascular risk factors exhibit different patterns of association with stroke by age, with consequent variations in their relative PAF. This information could be used to prioritise risk factor screening and modification by age group. Funding Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada; Canadian Stroke Network; AFA Insurance, Health Research Board Ireland; Swedish Research Council; Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation; The Health & Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Västra Götaland (Sweden); AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada); Pfizer (Canada); MSD; Chest, Heart, and Stroke Scotland; and The UK Stroke Association.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Healthy LongevitySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207