P.045 Prevalence of right-to-left shunting in stroke occurrence of patients with active cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Presence of right-to-left shunt has been proposed as a mechanism of paradoxical embolism in patients with active cancer. Our study thus aims to investigate the role of shunting in stroke occurrence among cancer patients. Methods: This is a retrospective study with our population consisting of patients presenting to the Ottawa Hospital with ischemic stroke between January 01, 2020, and December 31, 2022. Presence of right-to-left shunting is identified in patients with and without cancer diagnosis within one year of ischemic stroke. The prevalence of shunt is assessed using 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Among654 patients, 495 (37% female, median age 53 years) were included in the study, in which 47 (9.5%) had active cancer, with 12 patients (25.5%, 95% CI 14 - 40) diagnosed with a shunt. In contrast, among 448 patients (90.5%) without active cancer, 133 patients (30%, 95% CI 25 - 34) were found to have a shunt. Conclusions: The prevalence of right-to-left shunting tends to be lower in patients with ischemic stroke and active cancer diagnosis. Our results are similar to a recent study indicating a higher rate of shunt among patients without cancer. Our finding does not support the hypothesis that cancer-associated stroke is related to right-to-left shunting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".