GP.03 Outcomes after gastrostomy tube placement in patients with acute stroke: A 10-year population-based study using the Ontario Stroke Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Dysphagia is a common and devastating complication after acute stroke. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes are often placed for persistent dysphagia. However, little is known regarding outcomes after PEG tube placement. Methods: We used a 10-year Ontario Stroke Registry to shed light on the clinical outcomes of patients with PEG tube insertion after ischemic stroke or intracranial hemorrhage compared to patients with only NG tubes, including rate of pneumonia, disability, and mortality. Results: Using propensity score matching, 1,793 patients were successfully matched and had similar baseline characteristics. Compared with NG, patients with PEG had a higher rate of pneumonia (32.6% vs. 20.6%; RR 1.59), higher disability at discharge (modified Rankin Scale Score 3-5; 74.0% vs. 65.4%; RR 1.13), and higher rate of long-term care placement (27.1% vs. 9.3%; RR 2.9). >From stroke onset, there was a lower rate of death in patients with PEG compared to NG at 30 days (15.3% vs. 34.3%; RR 0.45) but no difference at 2 years (52.8% vs. 53.5%; RR 0.99, p=0.71). *All significant p <0.0001. Conclusions: In conclusion, PEG tube placement after stroke may prolong survival in patients with poor outcomes. Our study provides a framework for discussions between physicians, patients, and families with regards to expected prognosis after PEG tube placement.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".