Do All Age Groups Benefit From Organized Inpatient Stroke Care?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Organized inpatient stroke care consists of a multidisciplinary approach aimed at improving stroke outcomes. It is unclear whether elderly individuals benefit from these interventions to the same extent as younger patients. We sought to determine whether the reduction in mortality or institutionalization seen with organized stroke care was similar across all age groups. METHODS: This was a case-cohort study of patients with acute ischemic stroke seen between July 2003 and March 2005 and captured in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network. After stratifying by age category, we assessed for evidence of effect modification by age on the reduction in stroke fatality associated with stroke unit/organized care. RESULTS: Among 3631 patients with ischemic stroke, stroke case-fatality at 30 days was lower for patients admitted to a stroke unit compared with those admitted to general medical wards (10.2% versus 14.8%; P<0.0001 with an absolute risk reduction=4.6%, number needed to treat=22). All age groups achieved a similar benefit of stroke unit care versus general medical ward care (absolute risk reduction for 30-day stroke fatality was 4.5% for <60 years; 3.4% for 60 to 69 years; 5.3% for 70 to 79 years; and 5.5% for those >80 years). Increasing levels of organized care were associated with lower stroke fatality or institutionalization. The beneficial effect of stroke units/organized care on survival was seen even after adjustment for multiple prognostic factors and after excluding patients on palliative approach. There was no evidence of effect modification by age in any analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke units and organized inpatient care reduce death or institutionalization with the same magnitude of effect across all age groups.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".