MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2303750757 · doi:10.1177/1747493015622962

The future of endovascular treatment: Insights from the ESCAPE investigators

2016· article· en· W2303750757 on OpenAlexaffabout
Evgenia Klourfeld, Charlotte Zerna, Fahad Al-Ajlan, Noreen Kamal, Privia A. Randhawa, Amy Yu, Dar Dowlatshahi, John Thornton, David Williams, Christine Holmstedt, Michael Kelly, Donald Frei, Blaise Baxter, Guillermo Linares, Oh Young Bang, Alexandre Y. Poppe, Walter Montanera, Jeremy Rempel, Muneer Eesa, Bijoy K. Menon, Andrew M. Demchuk, Mayank Goyal, Michael D. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Stroke · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de MontréalUniversity of SaskatchewanOttawa HospitalRoyal University HospitalSaskatchewan HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGeneralizability theoryStroke (engine)Endovascular treatmentClinical trialIntensive care medicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ESCAPE trial demonstrated strong morbidity benefit and mortality reduction for endovascular stroke treatment. Following the release of the main results, the ESCAPE trial investigators convened at a 2-day close-out meeting in March 2015 in Banff, Alberta, Canada. Meeting discussions focused on system implications, procedural characteristics, and future directions. We report the proceedings of the meeting, which provide insights from the trialists into the issues of generalizability, treatment limitations, as well as future directions and opportunities in stroke care optimization.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.008
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of StrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207