Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Outcomes and Eligibility for Factor VIIa Treatment in a National Stroke Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a devastating form of stroke for which the lack of treatment options, high mortality rate, and the tendency to severely disable result in high social and economic burden. METHODS: We analyzed data in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network (RCSN). We sought to: (1) provide a descriptive analysis of ICH; (2) determine the proportion of ICH patients that might have been eligible for treatment with recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) using criteria from a recent phase II trial; (3) compare 6-month outcomes of ICH patients with those of ischemic stroke patients, matched for gender, age, and stroke severity. RESULTS: In the RCSN, 11% of all strokes were nontraumatic ICH. The median Canadian Neurological Scale score was 7. A minority (33%) of patients arrived to the emergency department in less than 3 h from onset. In this cohort, in-hospital mortality was 15%. At 6 months, a further 9% of patients had died and 58% had a slight to no disability (Stroke Impact Scale-16 score > or = 75). Approximately 20% of ICH patients would have been eligible for rFVIIa treatment. Compared to ischemic stroke, ICH showed a trend towards increased mortality at discharge (OR: 1.96, CI: 0.99-3.87). At 6-month follow-up, ICH showed increased mortality (OR: 2.27, CI: 1.29-3.97), yet functional outcomes were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: ICH patients had a higher case-fatality rate when compared to acute ischemic stroke, but survivors had similar functional outcomes. In Canada, about one fifth of ICH patients might potentially benefit from rFVIIa if it is approved, with the major exclusion factor being time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".