MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2287563680 · doi:10.1161/str.44.suppl_1.atmp91

Abstract TMP91: How Reliably Do Clinicians Predict Stroke Outcomes? Results from the JURaSSiC (Clinician JUdgment vs. Risk Score to predict Stroke outComes) randomized trial.

2013· article· en· W2287563680 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gustavo Saposnik, Robert Côté, Muhammad Mamdani, Kevin E. Thorpe, Stavroula Raptis, Jiming Fang, Donald A. Redelmeier, Larry B. Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesMcGill UniversitySt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Confidence intervalAcute strokePhysical therapyEmergency medicineClinical trialRandomized controlled trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Limited information is available evaluating the accuracy of clinician judgment compared with predictive stroke outcome scores. Objectives: To compare the accuracies of clinician judgment and a validated stroke risk score (iScore) for predicting stroke patient outcomes. Methods: A convenience sample of 111 practicing clinicians (general and stroke neurologists, internists, and ER physicians) predicted the outcomes of 5 stroke patients based on case summaries. Cases were randomly selected as being representative of the 10 most common clinical scenarios (n=1,415) from a pool of over 12,000 patients admitted to stroke centers in Ontario, Canada. Stroke cases had known clinical presentation, comorbidities, stroke severity, and outcomes. Main outcomes: 30 day mortality and/or disability at discharge. Results: Evaluators’ mean age was 40±12 years; 55 (50%) were active staff physicians, 47 (42%) neurologists and 8 (7%) board certified stroke neurologists. The mean number of stroke patients assessed per physician/yr was 98 (±150); 92 (82%) provide acute stroke care (initial 48 hrs). Although on average clinicians were able to estimate stroke patient outcomes accurately (mean absolute difference for death or disability at discharge: 12.8%; 95%CI 9.3%-16.5%) ,there was significant variability in the clinicians’ predictions (Figure A). Specifically, 70-100% of clinicians’ estimates were outside the 95%CI of observed outcomes (Figure B). In contrast, 90% of the iScore-based estimates were within the 95%CI of observed outcomes. Clinicians indicated a low level of confidence (mean 39%) in estimating outcomes. Conclusions: Clinicians with expertise in stroke care made predictions for actual outcomes outside of the 95%CI in 70-100% of cases whereas predictions using the iScore fell outside the 95%CI in less than 10% of cases. The iScore may provide a useful tool to help clinicians gauge a stroke patient’s likely outcome. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01657279

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.288
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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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