Emergency department or general practitioner following transient ischaemic attack? A comparison of patient behaviour and speed of assessment in England and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Many patients present late after a transient ischaemic attack (TIA). This delays intervention and may partly depend on where patients first present--emergency department (ED) or general practitioner (GP). Studying this behaviour could improve stroke prevention through better targeting of public education and allocation of resources. METHODS: Patients with TIA or minor stroke referred to neurovascular clinics in the UK and Canada were studied and the delay from onset to first medical presentation, whether at an ED or GP, was measured. Clinical features, timing and place of presentation were compared. RESULTS: Of 666 patients (469 in the UK and 197 in Canada), only 42% presented on the day of the TIA. The majority (77%) of patients presenting to an ED presented on the same day compared with only 11% of those who presented to a GP. GP delays were longer at weekends. Motor or speech symptoms and prolonged duration were associated with presenting early and to an ED. High-risk patients (ABCD2 score 6-7) in Canada were also more likely to go to an ED. Overall, 65% of Canadian patients and 40% of UK patients went to an ED. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients presenting to an ED go urgently, whereas most going to a GP delay, particularly at weekends. Most Canadian patients, particularly those at high risk, go to an ED whereas most UK patients go to a GP. One way to reduce delay, particularly in the UK, would be to direct all patients with TIA to go to an ED rather than to their GP.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".