MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2265593662 · doi:10.1161/str.46.suppl_1.wp363

Abstract W P363: Improvement Door-to-Needle Time For Iv Tpa By Initiation Of Treatment On CT Table

2015· article· en· W2265593662 on OpenAlexaff
Dmitry Rozenfeld, Hasan Wani, Orna Ben Yakov, Yael Safran

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsSafran Electronics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)NeurologyAcute strokeIschemic strokeEmergency medicineInternal medicineTissue plasminogen activatorIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Rambam Medical Center is the biggest hospital in northern Israel, serving an estimated population of 2,000,000 people. Every year there are as much as 1000 patients hospitalized in Rambam with the diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke. Rambam hospital has facilities for giving all possible types of fibrinolytic treatment in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Methods: We use a special algorithm looking for immediate identification of acute ischemic stroke admitting to ER and then a special neurology nursing stroke team (in cooperation with stroke neurologist) provides fast and complete diagnostic work-up, including imaging battery. Since June 2013 we practice to start a thrombolytic treatment at CT department on CT table immediately after regular brain CT is completed. Results: Using the current approach the minimal time of door-to-needle was reduced to 27 minutes in 2014 as compared with minimal time of 43 minutes in 2012 and 46 minutes in 2011. Conclusions: Start of IV Tpa treatment on CT table significantly reduces door-to-needle time for acute stroke patients. Use of such protocol requires dedicated stroke neurology nursing team.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.005

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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