MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1494090483 · doi:10.1161/str.46.suppl_1.tmp79

Abstract T MP79: Baseline disparities and Outcomes in Public vs Private US Health Care Institutions: The SPS3 Trial

2015· article· en· W1494090483 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Wilson, Thalia S. Field, Leslie A. McClure, Carole L. White, Oscar Benavente

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSocioeconomic statusStroke (engine)Hazard ratioEthnic groupBody mass indexDyslipidemiaClinical trialProportional hazards modelDemographyInternal medicineDiseasePhysical therapyGerontologyPopulationEnvironmental healthConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: For optimal secondary stroke prevention timely access to medical care is paramount. Disparities in stroke care related to race-ethnicity, socioeconomic status and health care access are present. It is unclear if these variables are modified within a clinical trial setting. Our aims were to compare baseline demographic, clinical and neuroradiological features and clinical outcomes (recurrent stroke, death and myocardial infarction (MI)) in US participants in the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS3) trial from public vs private institutions. METHODS: There were 1677 participants from US sites. We characterized sites as “public” or “private” based upon for-profit status and source of operational funding. Baseline demographic, clinical and neuroradiological features between groups were compared using Chi-square and unpaired t-tests, as appropriate. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare risk of outcomes between groups in crude and adjusted models including age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, dyslipidemia, ischemic heart disease, body mass index and race-ethnicity as co-variates. RESULTS: Of the 1677 US patients, 1009 (60%) were enrolled at public and 668 (40%) at private institutions. There were significant differences in public vs. private groups with respect to age (60 vs 64 y, p=0.001), race-ethnicity (59% non-white vs. 24%, p <0.0001), and educational status (15% with <9 y of education vs 4%, p<0.0001). Antiplatelet use at the time of the index event was higher in the private group (43% vs 35%, p=0.0005). Over a mean of 3.7y (SD 2.0) of follow-up, no significant differences between groups were found with regards to stroke recurrence (Adjusted HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9-1.5), death 0.9 (0.6-1.3) or MI 1.1(0.62-1.8). CONCLUSION: Despite baseline demographic disparities between groups from public and private sites, there were no significant differences in this trial setting with regards to outcomes. It is possible that strict control of risk factors, adherence to protocol and active interventions during the trial overcame disparities associated with differences in institutions, including differences related to medical care prior to study enrolment.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207