MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2284929176

ETIOLOGIC OVERLAPS BASED ON THE BRAIN INFARCT TOPOGRAPHY

2005· article· en· W2284929176 on OpenAlexaffabout
K Ghandehari, A Shoueyb

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEtiologyStroke (engine)EmbolismIschemic strokeStenosisInfarctionBrain infarctionCardiologyArteryInternal medicineRadiologyMyocardial infarctionIschemia
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Etiologic overlaps may occur in patients with ischemic stroke depending on the diagnostic investigations and classification criteria. Methods: Consecutive ischemic stroke patients admitted in Mackenzie hospital, Canada from August 2003 to August 2004 underwent a standard battery of diagnostic investigations by stroke neurologists. Stroke mechanism was defined based on the Toast criteria. Stroke topography subtypes were small and large artery territory infarcts. Results: A total of 302 stroke patients (159 female, 143 male) were registered. Small and large artery territory infarcts consisted 25.5% and 74.5% of our topography respectively. Etiologic overlaps were found in 17.5% of the patients. Cardiac source of embolism was significantly more frequent in patients with large artery territory infarcts (p= 0.002) but frequency difference of corresponing large artery atherosclerotic stenosis was not significant in these topographies (p= 0.378). Etiologic overlaps were more frequent in patients with small artery territory infarcts (p= 0.004). Conclusion: Etiologic overlaps are frequent and should be considered for optimal management of the ischemic stroke patients. Key words: Etiology, Mechanism, Overlap, Stroke, Coexistence

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.182
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→