MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2276051980 · doi:10.1161/str.44.suppl_1.a34

Abstract 34: Improvement In Etiological Identification In Tia And Minor Stroke Using The Causative Classification Of Stroke.

2013· article· en· W2276051980 on OpenAlexaff
Jamsheed A. Desai, Ahmad R. Abuzinadah, Oje Imoukhuede, Jayesh Modi, Manya L. Bernbaum, Shelagh B. Coutts

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEtiologyStroke (engine)Internal medicinePopulationProspective cohort studyMinor strokeAcute strokeSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: classification of Transient Ischemic attacks (TIA) and minor stroke is challenging, as there is no classification systems developed specifically for the TIA and minor stroke patient population. Hypothesis: We hypothesize that the newly developed Causative Classification System (CCS) and the Atherosclerosis Small Vessel Disease Cardiac Source Other Source (ASCO) classification would reduce the proportion of patients classified as cause undetermined compared with The Trial of ORG 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) classification in a large prospectively evaluated TIA and Minor stroke population. Methods: Using published algorithms for TOAST, CCS, and ASCO, a single rater classified the etiology in patients presenting with a high-risk TIA (weakness or speech disturbance lasting ≥ 5minutes) or minor ischemic stroke (National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score ≤ 3) who underwent CT/CTA and subsequent MRI as part of the CATCH study. Results: 419 patients with TIA or Minor stroke were classified using TOAST, CCS, and ASCO. The proportion of patients with an undetermined etiology was 51.3% (215/419) with TOAST. This was significantly reduced by both CCS 36% (151/419, p< 0.001) and ASCO 41% (172/419, p< 0.001). CCS was also less likely to have an undetermined etiology as compared to ASCO (36% versus 41%, p = 0.024). When compared with TOAST, there was a 23.9% (95%CI:18.1- 29.7, P< 0.001) and 17.4% (10.1- 24.7, P< 0.001) reduction in the proportion of patients assigned to the undetermined group using CCS and ASCO respectively. The 8.5 % reduction in the undetermined group between CCS and ASCO was also statistically different P=0.031). Compared with ASCO1, CCS increased the assignment of patients to large artery disease (relative increase 7.4% {4.3-10.4}, P< 0.001) and Cardio-embolism/cardio-aortic categories (relative increase 8.1% {4.6-11.5}, P< 0.001). Conclusions: Both CCS and ASCO were superior to TOAST in assigning fewer patients to an undetermined etiology category. CCS was superior to ASCO at reducing the proportion of patients with undetermined etiology. This was largely driven by increased assignment in the large artery and Cardio-aorto embolic categories.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.261 · 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→