Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have read with attention and great interest the article by Bravata et al.1 recently published in this journal, about the feasibility of using early nasal CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) treatment in patients with ischemic stroke, and its beneficial effects on their neurological recovery after a 1-month follow-up. We have also recently published similar results from a randomized controlled trial with early nasal CPAP treatment in patients with ischemic first-ever stroke. We included 141 selected patients with AHI ≤ 20 events/h: 71 patients (with only 14 refusing nasal CPAP treatment) in the intervention group and 69 patients in the control group. The percentage of patients with neurological improvement 1 month after stroke was significantly higher in the nasal CPAP group (Rankin scale 90.9 of versus 56.3% [P < 0.01]; Canadian scale 88.2 of versus 72.7% [P < 0.05]).2 Our study differed in that nasal CPAP treatment was initiated slightly later, although still in the acute period after stroke onset (between 3-6 days), since our design included a diagnostic sleep study prior to randomization.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".