MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predictors of outcome after acute ischemic stroke*

2003· article· en· W1985335938 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. M. Sumer, Iklim Özdemir

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Neurologica Scandinavica · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineModified Rankin ScaleStroke (engine)Internal medicineInfarctionOdds ratioIschemic strokeCerebral infarctionDiseaseCardiologyMyocardial infarctionIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to determine which variables should be the predictors for clinical outcome at discharge and sixth month after acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-six consecutive patients, each with an acute ischemic cerebrovascular disease, were evaluated within 24 h of symptom onset. We divided our patients into two groups; 1 - Independent (Rankin scale RS < or = 2) and, 2 - Dependent (RS>3) and death. Baseline characteristics, clinical variables, risk factors, infarct subtypes and radiologic parameters were analyzed. RESULTS: Canadian Neurological Scale (CNS) on admission <6.5 [odds ratio (OR) 22] and posterior circulation infarction (OR 4.2) were associated with a poor outcome at discharge from hospital whereas only a CNS score <6.5 (OR 14) was associated with a poor outcome at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Severity of neurologic deficit is the most important indicator for clinical outcome in acute ischemic stroke both at short-term and at sixth month, whereas posterior circulation infarction also predicts a poor outcome at discharge.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations29
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Neurologica ScandinavicaSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207