Role of emergent chest radiography in evaluation of hyperacute stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To use data from a large multicenter trial to assess the role and significance of chest radiograph (CXR) in the initial evaluation of acute stroke. METHODS: Predefined clinical characteristics of patients who had recorded data on CXR examination during the initial evaluation were collected. We compared features of patients who had a CXR done before IV thrombolytics with those who did not. Rates of adverse cardiopulmonary events, intubation, and in-hospital mortality were also compared. Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate for the association of CXR performance with door-to-needle time ≥60 minutes. RESULTS: In a cohort of 615 patients, 243 had CXR done before IV thrombolytics. Patients with CXR before treatment had significantly higher admission neurologic deficit, initial respiratory rates, and door-to-needle time than those with CXR after treatment. The rates of cardiopulmonary adverse events in the first 24 hours of admission, endotracheal intubation in the first 7 hours, and in-hospital mortality were not different between the 2 groups. Patients with CXR done before treatment had longer mean door-to-needle times than those without pretreatment radiography (75.8 vs 58.3 minutes, p = 0.0001). Performance of CXR was independently associated with door-to-needle time ≥60 minutes (odds ratio 2.78, 95% confidence interval 1.97-3.92; p = 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Performance of CXR prior to IV thrombolytics prolongs door-to-needle time in acute ischemic stroke patients. CXR before treatment should be reserved for situations wherein acute cardiopulmonary conditions would otherwise preclude the administration of IV thrombolytics or substantially influence management.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".