MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The future of stroke thrombolysis

2012· review· en· W1509608683 on OpenAlexaffabout
Antoine M. Hakim

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalHeart and Stroke FoundationUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrombolysisStroke (engine)MedicineTissue plasminogen activatorAcute strokeInternal medicineAuditImmune modulationIschemic strokeEmergency medicineCardiologyIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyImmune systemImmunologyIschemiaMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies with tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) published in 1995 showed significant improvement in stroke outcome if the drug was administered within 3 hours from stroke onset. Several recent reports, however, show that less than 5% of stroke patients may be receiving t-PA in many parts of North America. This paper explores how this may be improved by examining some of the steps taken in Canada, where a recent audit showed that 8.2% of ischemic stroke patients received t-PA, and in those arriving within 2.5 hours to regional stroke centers in Ontario, 42.2% received t-PA. The paper also reviews the potential for t-PA to be given by more physicians, in remote regions using Telestroke, the possibility for using imaging characteristics rather than the onset of stroke as a determinant of eligibility for t-PA, the status of contraindications for thrombolysis, and the possibility of combining t-PA with immune modulation for improved stroke outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→