Care needs and economic consequences after acute ischemic stroke: the Erlangen Stroke Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to determine the functional outcome, location of care and economic consequences in the first 3 months after ischemic stroke. As part of the Erlangen Stroke Project, (ESPro) information was collected on patients suffering a first-ever ischemic stroke. Three months after the stroke, location of care, dependence on caregivers and function based on Barthel Index: poor (0-55), moderate (60-90) or good function (95-100) were recorded. Data about health services used were combined with cost estimates for Germany (2000 Euros, undiscounted). Of 491 patients hospitalized, 383 were alive 3 months afterwards, 79% residing in the community. The majority of patients with poor function (60%) were still in institutional care. Patients with good function typically accrued the lowest costs, whether in an institution (17 965) or not (11 032) compared with poorer function who were living in an institution (poor: 26 370; moderate: 28,121), or community (poor: 27,207; moderate: 19,350). Hospitalization and rehabilitation services were the major costs accrued at each level of function. Many patients were left requiring a substantial amount of care and the costs associated with providing institutional care has a major impact on the economic consequences of a stroke.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".