Rapid Evaluation after High-Risk TIA is Associated with Lower Stroke Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current 'standard of care' for patients presenting with a 'high-risk' TIA varies, with use of several outpatient and inpatient approaches. We describe the clinical outcomes and costs for high risk TIA patients who received care in a 'rapid evaluation unit', and compare these to a historical 'high-risk' cohort. METHODS: The study cohort was comprised of patients with TIA admitted to a 'rapid evaluation unit' during the period March 2002 to April 2003. The comparison cohort was established by screening Calgary Health Region ER discharge records to identify all patients presenting with a diagnosis of TIA during the year 2000. A 'high-risk standard care cohort' was then identified based on the clinical admission criteria used to select patients for the rapid evaluation unit. Outcomes (stroke within 90 days, death) and costs were identified using chart review and provincial administrative data. RESULTS: The early risk of stroke in the high risk standard care group (392 patients) was 9.7%, compared to 4.7% in the rapid evaluation cohort (189 patients) (p = 0.05). Median 1-year costs post TIA were CAN $8360 for patients in the rapid evaluation cohort, compared with CAN $4820 for patients in the high risk standard care group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of early stroke was lower for patients in the rapid evaluation cohort compared to the high risk standard care cohort, suggesting that the use of rapid evaluation programs in patients with TIA at high risk of stroke may be beneficial, but incur greater costs over the course of the first year.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".