Distinct Short-Term Outcomes in Patients With Mild Versus Rapidly Improving Stroke Not Treated With Thrombolytics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Mild stroke (MS) and rapidly improving stroke (RIS) symptoms are common stroke presentations. Our objective is to describe the short-term outcomes in this population. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with ischemic stroke in the Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry who arrived ≤4.5 hours from symptom onset not treated with thrombolytics because of MS and RIS. Outcomes included in-hospital death, home discharge, independent ambulation at discharge, and length of stay; these were analyzed for the categories of MS, RIS, and MS+RIS. Multivariable models evaluated the associations of individual and hospital covariates with outcomes. RESULTS: Among 42 394 patients with MS and RIS not treated with thrombolytics, 27% were not discharged directly home, 27.2% did not ambulate independently, and 61.1% had length of stay ≥3 days, despite a low in-hospital mortality of 0.8%. Adjusted outcomes were better for MS+RIS compared with MS; RIS also had better independent ambulation and home discharge compared with MS. Among those with a documented National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, 25% of those with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 0 to 5 and half of those with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale >5 could not be discharged directly to home or ambulate independently. Older individuals, women, blacks, transport by ambulance, delayed arrival, greater severity and greater burden of vascular risk factors, except for dyslipidemia, had worse adjusted outcomes for home discharge and independent ambulation. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients with MS and RIS not treated with thrombolytics have suboptimal discharge outcomes. We found significant differences between MS, RIS, and MS+RIS and identified factors associated with worse outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".