MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2409842519

An epidemiologically-based needs assessment for stroke services.

2005· article· en· W2409842519 on OpenAlexaffabout
Duncan Hunter, Heather Grant, Mark P. Purdue, Robert A. Spasoff, John Dorland, Nam Bains

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)RehabilitationCarotid endarterectomyPopulationAcute strokePhysical therapyEnvironmental healthNursingSurgeryCarotid arteries
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stroke is amenable to the entire spectrum of health services, ranging from prevention of its risk factors, to the treatment of acute stroke and rehabilitation and palliation of stroke. The aim of this study was to determine the number of persons with the capacity to benefit from evidence-based effective stroke services. Population-based survey and registry data along with published, evidence-based recommendations for services were used to determine the number of persons in Eastern Ontario with stroke (including risk factors, acute stroke and chronic stroke) and their related need for services (including prevention programs, diagnostic services, treatment of acute stroke and rehabilitation). These estimates were then compared to the actual provision of these services. Estimates of the need for effective services exceeded the provision of all services with the exception of pharmacologic treatment for diabetes mellitus and carotid endarterectomy for acute stroke. The approach was able to identify both the under-provision and over-provision of evidence-based effective services for stroke. This study has shown that an epidemiologically-based needs assessment could be a useful basis for the planning of health services.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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