Cognitive impairment in acute ischemic stroke patients with early versus delayed antihypertensive treatment: A prespecified analysis of CATIS-2 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The optimal timing for initiating antihypertensive therapy after acute ischemic stroke (AIS), particularly regarding cognitive outcomes, remains uncertain. This study investigated the association between treatment timing and 3-month cognitive function. Methods: This prespecified analysis of the China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke II (CATIS-2) included patients completing 3-month Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Participants were randomized to early (immediate) or delayed (day 8) antihypertensive treatment, with MoCA score as primary outcome. Results: A total of 1682 patients completed the cognitive assessment; 823 received early antihypertensive treatment and 859 received delayed treatment. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The median MoCA score was 23 in both groups (β, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.03; P = .19). In addition, the proportion of individuals with MoCA scores < 25 was similar between the two groups (62% vs 59%; OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.40; P = 0.16). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested a potential interaction by prior antihypertensive use, whereby early antihypertensive treatment was associated with worse cognitive outcomes in patients with prior antihypertensive use (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01–1.77; p = 0.03; P for interaction = 0.04). Conclusions: Early antihypertensive initiation did not improve 3-month cognitive outcomes in AIS patients, highlighting the importance of individualized therapy, especially for high-risk PSCI subgroups.
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) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".