Outcome after Stroke upon Awakening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An estimated 20-25% of all strokes occur during sleep and these patients wake up with their deficits. This study evaluated outcomes among patients who woke up with stroke compared to those who were awake at stroke onset. METHODS: Using data from the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network Phases 1 and 2, we compared demographics, clinical data and six-month outcomes between patients with stroke-on-awakening versus stroke-while-awake. Strokes of all types (ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, intracerebral hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage) were included. Standard descriptive statistics, multivariable logistic regression and general linear modeling were applied to the data to compare variables. RESULTS: Among 2585 stroke patients, 349 (13.5%) woke up with stroke and 2236 (86.5%) did not. Patients with stroke-on-awakening were more likely to have higher blood pressure and to suffer ischemic stroke, but stroke severity, measured by level of consciousness, did not differ. Mortality both at discharge and at six-month follow-up did not differ between the two cohorts. However, patients with stroke-on-awakening were less likely to return home, and their median Stroke Impact Scale-16 scores were 7.0 points lower compared to those with stroke-while-awake. CONCLUSIONS: There are minor demographic and clinical differences between patients with stroke-on-awakening and stroke-while-awake. Functional outcomes are slightly worse among patients with stroke-on-awakening, an effect which was driven by poor outcomes among patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".