MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113107835 · doi:10.1586/erc.09.105

Predicting recurrent stroke after minor stroke and transient ischemic attack

2009· review· en· W2113107835 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Couillard, Alexandre Y. Poppe, Shelagh B. Coutts

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreHôpital Notre-DameUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMinor strokeStroke (engine)NeuroimagingEmergency departmentCardiologyIschemic strokeMagnetic resonance imagingAcute strokeInternal medicineEmergency medicineRadiologyIschemiaStenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The risk of a subsequent stroke following an acute transient ischemic attack or minor stroke is high, with 90-day risk at approximately 10%. Identification of those patients at the highest risk for recurrent stroke following a transient ischemic attack or minor stroke may allow risk-specific management strategies to be implemented, such as hospital admission with expedited work-up for those at high risk and emergency room discharge for those at low risk. Predictors of recurrent stroke, including the ABCD2 score, brain imaging and the stroke mechanism, are reviewed in this article, with a focus on recent literature. An emphasis is placed on the importance of early imaging of the brain parenchyma (diffusion-weighted imaging) and vascular imaging to identify patients at high risk for recurrence. The need for identification of the cause of the initial event, allowing therapies to be tailored to the individual patient, is discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Cardiovascular TherapySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207