An Analysis of Spatial Clustering of Stroke Types, In-hospital Mortality, and Reported Risk Factors in Alberta, Canada, Using Geographic Information Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite advances in the quality and delivery of stroke care, regional disparities in stroke incidence and outcome persist. Spatial analysis using geographic information systems (GIS) can assist in identifying high-risk populations and regional differences in efficacy of stroke care. The aim of this study was to identify and locate geographic clusters of high or low rates of stroke, risk factors, and in-hospital mortality across a provincial health care network in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: This study employed a spatial epidemiological approach using population-based hospital administrative data. Getis-Ord Gi* and Spatial Scan statistics were used to identify and locate statistically significant "hot" and "cold" spots of stroke occurrence by type, risk factors, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Marked regional variations were found. East central Alberta was a significant hot spot for ischemic stroke (relative risk [RR] 1.43, p<0.001), transient ischemic attack (RR 2.25, p<0.05), and in-hospital mortality (RR 1.50, p<0.05). Hot spots of intracerebral hemorrhage (RR 1.80, p<0.05) and subarachnoid hemorrhage (RR 1.64, p<0.05) were identified in a major urban centre. Unexpectedly, stroke risk factor hot spots (RR 2.58, p<0.001) were not spatially associated (did not overlap) with hot spots of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of health care administrative data sets with geographic information systems contributes valuable information by identifying the existence and location of regional disparities in the spatial distribution of stroke occurrence and outcomes. Findings from this study raise important questions regarding why regional differences exist and how disparities might be mitigated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".