MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 200: Is Risk-standardized In-hospital Stroke Mortality an Adequate Proxy for Risk-standardized 30-day Stroke Mortality Data? Findings From the GWTG-Stroke Program

2017· article· en· W2634364327 on OpenAlexaff
Mathew J. Reeves, Gregg C. Fonarow, Haolin Xu, Roland Matsouaka, Ying Xian, Jeffrey L. Saver, Lee H. Schwamm, Eric E. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Emergency medicineProxy (statistics)Mortality rateIschemic strokePediatricsInternal medicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hospital profiling is typically undertaken using risk standardized 30-day mortality but obtaining this data is complicated as it requires tracking patients post discharge. We undertook this analysis to determine if risk standardized in-hospital mortality could serve as an adequate proxy for risk standardized 30-day mortality data for the purposes of identifying outlier hospitals with high or low ischemic stroke mortality. Methods: Acute ischemic stroke cases entered into Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)-Stroke between 2003-2013 were linked to fee-for-service Medicare files. Hospitals with fewer than 25 cases were excluded. Risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMR) for both in-hospital and 30-day mortality were generated using a previously developed risk model, and the proportion of hospitals classified as statistical outliers (based on random effects models) were compared between the two. To assess the impact of stroke severity we conducted a sensitivity analysis limiting cases to those with NIHSS data. Results: A total of 535,332 ischemic stroke patients from 1494 GWTG-Stroke hospitals were included; mean age was 80 years, 59% were female, 19% were non-white, NIHSS (mean = 7.7) was recorded in 58%. Average in-hospital and 30-day mortality was 5.7% and 14.5%, respectively. At the hospital level, mean in-hospital RSMR and 30-day RSMR was 6.0% (SD 1.9) and 14.6% (SD 2.0), respectively, but the correlation between the two was only modest (r = 0.53). Overall agreement between the designation of outlier hospitals based on in-hospital and 30-day RSMRs was 78% (Table), but after correcting for chance agreement, concordance was quite modest (Kappa = 0.29). Findings based on models that included NIHSS were similar. Conclusions: When used to identify outlier hospitals with high or low ischemic stroke mortality the agreement between in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality was only modest. Using in-hospital mortality data proved to be a poor proxy for 30-day mortality.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207