MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1800614551 · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7274.1455

Regular review: Prevention of ischaemic stroke

2000· review· en· W1800614551 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gordon Gubitz, Peter Sandercock

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsIschaemic strokeStroke (engine)MedicineCardiologyIschemiaEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke have focused largely on drug treatments, and yet the number of effective and widely practicable treatments remains limited. After a spate of trials with negative results, no neuroprotective agents have yet been licensed for acute stroke. Although thrombolysis with tissue plasminogen activator is now available in the United States and Canada, most eligible patients are not treated, and thrombolysis remains the subject of considerable debate in the international research community. 1 2 Other important interventions for people with acute stroke include organised care in multidisciplinary stroke units and routine use of aspirin in acute ischaemic stroke. 3 4 Stroke is the second most common cause of death worldwide, and with no major panacea for acute stroke imminent, we must not ignore stroke prevention.5 Medical and surgical treatments to prevent stroke carry some risk (and some cost). These preventive strategies should be targeted at those who are at the highest absolute risk of stroke, because these individuals are likely to derive the greatest absolute benefit.6 These patients generally have a history of occlusive vascular diseases with symptoms— that is, prior ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, coronary heart disease, or peripheral vascular disease. Among the 80% of patients who survive an acute stroke, the risk of recurrent stroke is highest within the first few weeks and months; about 10% in the first year and about 5% per year thereafter. These patients are also at a major risk of other vascular disease, including myocardial infarction, emphasising the need for early preventive treatments.7 Individual risk factors such as a history of hypertension, smoking, hyperlipidaemia, increased blood glucose concentration, and obesity are important considerations for all patients, especially those at high risk. #### Summary points Reduction of blood pressure is effective at preventing a first …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.007

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations58
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207