MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2254822382 · doi:10.1161/str.44.suppl_1.awmp19

Abstract WMP19: Are “Drip and Ship” Patients Different than Other rt-PA Treated Patients? Clinical Characteristics and Patient Outcomes.

2013· article· en· W2254822382 on OpenAlexaff
Dawn Kleindorfer, Eric E. Smith, Gregg C. Fonarow, Maria M Grau-Sepulveda, DaiWai M. Olson, Adrian F. Hernandez, Eric D. Peterson, Lee H. Schwamm

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Atrial fibrillationInternal medicineWilcoxon signed-rank testIschemic strokeEmergency medicinePediatricsMann–Whitney U test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Many large stroke centers provide remote acute stroke consultation to partner hospitals via telephone or video, followed by transfer of the patient to the central hospital (“drip and ship” (DS)). We used data from a large, quality-oriented database to describe the characteristics and outcomes of drip and ship patients compared to patients that received rt-PA and were admitted at the same institution (“front door” (FD) cases). Methods: We analyzed acute ischemic stroke cases treated with rt-PA in Get With The Guidelines-Stroke (GWTG-Stroke) between April 2003 and October, 2010. Data were included from fully participating GWTG-Stroke hospitals with discharge information available. Categorical data were analyzed by Pearson chi-square test and continuous data by Wilcoxon test. Results: A total of 44,667 rt-PA treated ischemic stroke pts from 1440 hospitals were included in this analysis, of which 34,192 were front door cases, and 10,475 were drip and ship. DS cases were slightly younger (69yo vs. 72yo), and were more likely male (46% vs. 50%), white (81% vs. 75%), and had lower NIHSSS (11 vs. 12), p<0.001 for all comparisons. The DS patients were statistically less likely to report hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and prior stroke history, but absolute differences were small (see Table). In-hospital mortality was similar for DS vs. FD (10.9% vs. 9.6%), as was the symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate <36hrs (5.8% vs. 5.2%), and discharge to home (41% vs. 40%). Discussion: Within the GWTG-Stroke database, 23% of rt-PA-treated ischemic stroke are “drip and ship” patients, and have similar demographics and co-morbidities to “front-door” treated patients. Clinical outcomes, including in-hospital mortality and symptomatic hemorrhage are also similar. These data demonstrate that the current national paradigm of remote consultation for acute ischemic stroke thrombolysis is as safe as in-person consultation.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→