MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416912933 · doi:10.1177/17474930251406818

Effect of colchicine for secondary prevention according to stroke subtype: A secondary analysis of the CONVINCE randomized trial

2025· article· en· W4416912933 on OpenAlexaff
Louise Maes, Cathal Walsh, Christian Weimar, Francisco Purroy, Christopher Price, Brian Clarke, Pedro Castro, Anna Członkowska, Elisa Cuadrado‐Godia, Urs Fischer, Ana Catarina Fonseca, Michael D. Hill, Dalius Jatužis, Janika Kõrv, Christina Kruuse, Robert Mikulík, Paul J. Nederkoorn, L. Sztriha, Marcus Thieme, Peter J. Kelly, Robin Lemmens

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Stroke · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammasome and immune disorders
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical Centre
FundersFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsSecondary preventionColchicineRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)Ischemic strokeIntention-to-treat analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Colchicine for prevention of vascular inflammation in Non-CardioEmbolic stroke (CONVINCE) trial evaluated long-term treatment with colchicine for the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in a stroke population. Although the intention-to-treat analysis did not demonstrate a significant reduction in the primary endpoint, fewer outcome events were observed in the colchicine-treated group. It is unknown if a potential treatment effect is modified by ischemic stroke etiology. AIMS: In this pre-specified secondary analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of colchicine for prevention of MACE in patients with minor stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA) according to index event stroke etiology. METHODS: A total of 3154 patients with recent non-cardioembolic stroke or TIA were randomly assigned to receive colchicine, 0.5 mg daily in addition to guideline-based usual care or usual care alone. The primary endpoint was a composite of first fatal or non-fatal recurrent ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Subgroups of patients with large-artery atherosclerosis, small-vessel disease, and cryptogenic stroke were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 3100 patients were included in the current analysis. The treatment effect did not vary across stroke subtype subgroups (p = 0.64 for interaction). In patients allocated to colchicine versus usual care alone, the primary endpoint occurred in 32 of 260 (12.3%) versus 42 of 263 (16%) patients with large-artery atherosclerosis (hazard ratio (HR), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.48-1.22)); 39 of 419 (9.3%) versus 47 of 435 (10.8%) patients with small-vessel occlusion (HR, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.57-1.34)); and 82 of 877 (9.4%) versus 92 of 846 (10.5%) patients with cryptogenic stroke (HR, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.66-1.12)). CONCLUSIONS: The direction of effect for prevention of recurrent MACE favored colchicine, consistent with randomized trials in coronary disease, regardless of stroke subtype. Future stroke trials should consider selecting patients with evidence of atherosclerosis irrespective of stroke subtype. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02898610.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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 venueInternational Journal of StrokeSame topicInflammasome and immune disordersFrench-language works237,207