Neurological Outcome and Quality of Life after Stroke due to Vertebral Artery Dissection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vertebral artery dissection is a well-recognized cause of posterior circulation stroke for which there is relatively little information on long-term outcomes. Quality of life (QOL) is an important patient-centred outcome measure. METHODS: Stroke due to vertebral artery dissection was conservatively defined by neuroimaging documentation. Thirty sequential cases were identified based on a retrospective database and chart review with prospective follow-up. Surviving patients completed the Short Form-36 (SF-36) and the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life (SSQOL) scales and were subsequently examined neurologically and scored on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Comparisons were made between outcome on the stroke scale and QOL scales and between outcome on the SF-36 and the Canadian population. RESULTS: There was discordance between outcomes recorded on a standard stroke scale and QOL measures with more patients scoring poorly on QOL measures. QOL was low in one third of the survivors. Overall QOL was significantly lower than the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke due to vertebral artery dissection results in poorer outcomes on patient-centred QOL measures than on a standard stroke scale.
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) | 0.000 | 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".