MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2055038705 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100014864

Unique Experiences with Intercontinental Trials in Stroke - Part II

2013· review· en· W2055038705 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Henry J.M. Barnett, John Coleman Laidlaw

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)AspirinMedicineCarotid arteriesRandomized controlled trialHarmStroke riskClinical trialCardiologyIschemic strokeEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicinePsychologyIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supported by the Canadian Medical Research Council we performed a randomized trial extending from Newfoundland to British Columbia. With others a number of observations showed that aspirin will reduce stroke. With National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke support we learned who would benefit and not from surgery in these stroke threatened carotid diseased patients. We evaluated the upper limits of acceptability of complications beyond which harm was done. Amassing this large data base of approximately 5000 individuals, followed for five years, previously unknown carotid phenomena were observed: 1. Ischemic stroke occurs in patients with prolapsing mitral valves; 2. There is risk of stroke in patients with residual thrombi in the occluded stump of the carotid artery; 3. We detected a lower risk than expected in patients with nearly occluded carotid arteries. We support the contention of Yusuf and Cairns' that Canada needs to give more financial support to purely clinical research. It pays off !

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→