Diagnostic Strategies in Young Patients with Ischemic Stroke in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A preliminary national survey of ischemic stroke in the young (15-45 years) undertaken by the Canadian Stroke Consortium indicated that in 44% of 356 patients, no cause was found. OBJECTIVE: To determine the reason for this high incidence of diagnostic uncertainty in young patients with ischemic stroke. METHODS: Neurologists in the ten Canadian stroke centers completed a detailed questionnaire for patients aged 15-45 years admitted to hospital between January 1993 and December 1997. Using a stepwise diagnostic algorithm incorporating clinical, neuroimaging, neurovascular and laboratory data, we divided patients into three groups: (1) those with established cause for the ischemic stroke, (2) those who remained unexplained despite adequate investigation, (3) those who remained unexplained but were, in our opinion, under-investigated. RESULTS: In 197 patients (56%), an identified cause was established including cardioembolic sources (14%), extracranial arterial dissection (13%), lacunar infarcts (8%) atherosclerosis (6%). A miscellaneous group of 15%, included cerebral venous thrombosis, coagulopathies, vasculitis and others. In 159 patients (44%) with no apparent cause for their stroke, we considered only 81 (23%) adequately investigated, and 78 (21%) inadequately investigated. CONCLUSION: About one in five young patients was inadequately investigated by a stroke-oriented group of neurologists. The major problem appears to be restriction of investigations to neuroimaging alone (usually computerized cerebral tomography), without further tests such as cerebral angiography and cardiac imaging.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".